Proceedings of the Mississippi Governor's Conference on Coastal Zone Management, July 24 and 25, 1974, Biloxi, Mississippi

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

Coastal Zone
Information 'C"01C RECOPY
Center MURES HOM TH 60MOOR'S COPHROU
00 CORSTAL Z0n( ffinflfflffl

W
Julg 24 and 25, 1914
Biloxi, Mississippi

1011
stg;nw,

A,
4

Sponsored tor
Mississippi Marine Resources Council
bg
0@44@ T h e Mississippi-Alabama Sea 6rant Consortium
GC wwmmmwwm@
57.2
A

.U5
M5
no.74-027
MASGP-74-027 _U0E
ROOM. , LV

0 (!) 3 6 1, - -

@ - 1''. 1
@,W, k
"i@ J l."
W
V 15" O"UR,
KWIuMUF A

_.4

This Mississippi Governor's Conference on Coastal Zone Management

was sponsored by the Mississippi -Alabama Sea Grant Consortium under

contractual arrangements with the Mississippi Marine Resources Council.

The Mississippi Marine Resources Council is supported by the State

of Mississippi and by a coastal zone management program development

grant from the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, as authorized by

Section 305 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The Mississippi-

Alabama Sea Grant Consortium is supported by the State of Mississippi

and by the Office of Sea Grant, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, Department of Commerce.

The Council and the Consortium would like to express its appreciation

to all of those State and Federal agencies, groups and individuals who

helped to make this Conference a success.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE MISSISSIPPI

GOVERNOR'S CONFERENCE ON COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

Sponsored for

The Mississippi Marine Resources Council

by the

Mis sis sippi -Alabama Sea Grant Consortium

Property Of CSC Library

July 24 and 25, 1974

Biloxi, Mississippi

MASGP-74-027

U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
Purposes of the Conference
Bruce W. Mattox, Ph.D. 6-oo-oo-o o ..... o..... o . o o

Local, State, and Federal Perspectives of
Coastal Zone Management
"Benefits to be Derived from Coastal Zone
Management"
The Honorable Ben H. Stone o.......... o ...... 3
TIThe Relationship of the Mississippi Marine
Resources Council to Coastal Zone Management"
Donald J. Cuevas .............. o ........... o...... o... 11
"The Coastal Zone Management Plan
for Mississippi"
James B. Rucker, Ph. D . ....... o ...................... 21
"Coastal Zone Management--An Overview
From the Federal Viewpoint"
Robert W. Knecht ....................... o ............ 0 27

Luncheon Address
Introduction: Roland Weeks, Jr. o. o............ o. 37
Speaker: The Honorable Aaron R. Schwartz ............. 39

Panel Discussion on the Areas of Critical
Interest in Coastal Zone Management
Moderator: The Honorable William C. Rhodes
Panel: Fisheries
William J. Demoran .................. o ........ 49
Mineral Extraction and Fossil Fuels
Terry Owen ........... o.... o.......... o_ .... 57
Recreation and Tourism
Edward Keels ...... __ .... o............. o... 61
Transportation and Navigation
W. Larry Harris .. o ..................... o... o. 63
Commerce and Industrial Development
James W. Miller ................ o ............. 71
Residential Development
D. L. Anderson ... o ......... o...o ........... o 77
Waste Disposal
Bob Monefte . o.... o .......................... 81

Dinner Address
Introduction: Donald J. Cuevas ........................ 85
Speaker: Governor William L. Waller ........ o... o. - 88

Summary of Workshop Sessions ........... o..... o... o o 95

Conference Summary
B ruc e W. Mattox, Ph. D . ...... o............. o...... o o.. 109

Luncheon Address
Introduction: The Honorable Edwa rd A. Khayat o o 113
Speaker: William G. Simpson .... o .......... oo ...... o. 114

Appendix
Conference Agenda o........... o ........... o o . o.... o. 125
Conference Participants . o. . o.................... - ... 129
Members of the Mississippi Marine Resources Council ... 141

PURPOSES OF THE CONFERENCE

Bruce W. Mattox, Ph.D.
Director, Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium
Member, Mississippi Marine Resources Council

I have diligently tried to think of some type of acronym or "catchy"

little phrase that would summarize the purposes of this conference so

that we can all easily remember why we are here. Therefore, the pur-

poses of this conference are to conformi perform, inform, deform, reform,

preform, and last but not least, maidenform. I must explain these just a bit.

Conform is to conform to the spirit and to the guidelines of the

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 by initiating Mississippi's Coastal

Zone Management effort with class.

The second one, perform, is to perform in accordance with the

proposal that was submitted by the Mississippi Marine Resources Council

to the Office of Coastal Environment, which is a part of the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department

of Commerce. That proposal has been funded by this group.

The third reason for being here is to inform you about what coastal

zone management is at the present time. We plan to tell you how the plan-

ning and implementation can be carried out at all levels of government and

how you can participate. Also, we plan to inform the coastal zone managers

of the needs, goals, problems and solutions. The earlier parts of this

program are designed to inform you. The latter parts of the program,

particularly the workshop sessions, are designed to let you inform the

managers of what you want the coast to look like and what you want to

be here in the future.

As we really get into the spirit of this conference we are going

to deform traditional thinking about boundaries along the coast. We are

going to reform them into what needs to be the definition of the coastal

zone. At these same sessions we will preform some ideas about the

needs, conflicts and solutions that will apply to this newly defined zone.

Finally, we are going to maidenform. Within our bosoms we are

going to uplift the spirit of cooperation and support coastal. zone manage-

ment activities to change the contours of our coast for the beauty and

quality of life that it will bring to us all.

BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED FROM COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

The Honorable Ben H. Stone
State Senator, State of Mississippi
Member, Mississippi Marine Resources Council

It is an honor and a privilege to be asked to lead off the keynote

session of the Governor's Coastal Zone Management Conference. I am

flattered with the invitation, but somewhat awed by the task that has

been assigned me.

In reviewing my topic, "Benefits To Be Derived From Coastal

Zone Management From A Local Standpoint, " I found that very little

information of a specific nature has been presented or published on what

many of us may consider to be an easily defined subject. This reflects

the relative infancy of this important consideration, and in a sense this

conference is "paving new ground. " We here are truly on the ground

floor.

Coastal zone management is most simply a cooperatively funded

and administrated program between the Federal Government and the

Ink
states that calls first for delineating what actually is a state's coastal

area and its natural and human resources and then for developing plans

and programs for the future use and preservation of that area and its

resources. Obviously, the program is much more complex than this

and involves many other ramifications, but the later speakers will go

into greater detail on this.

-3-

The Coastal Zone Management Act enabling this program is essentially

a law aimed at the state level of control. However, this is not to say that

local governments and representatives and their constituents have been ex-

cluded, Quite to the contrary, the Act specifically directs that people in the

coastal areas and their governments are to be actively included in both the

development and administration of coastal zone management plans. It is no

secret that coastal zone management would be a complete failure anywhere

without the participation and cooperation of coastal governments and residents.

I want to discuss this in greater detail later.

In considering the Coastal Zone Management Act and its relationship

to the local situation in Mississippi, I find that three very general areas of

possible benefit stand out. Not necessarily in order of importance, they are:

(1) Improved natural resource protection and utilization, (2) improved effi-

ciency of all levels of government in dealing with problems present and future,

and (3) an improved relationship or communication between the individuals in

a community and the various governments. These are three extremely broad

areas, each of which encompasses a number of separate items of concern.

The Coastal Zone Management Act was based on several concerns; but

one of the most important was that our natural resources of the coastal area

were being abused and misused at a startling rate, and, as opposed to other

areas, the coastal zone was most susceptible to abuse and the most difficult

to replace. Something had to be done to stem that trend. Assuming proper

implementation of a properly devised coastal zone program, local interests

-4-

can benefit several ways from this emphasis. For example, resources of

significant value in their natural state, such as coastal wetlands, can be

identified and preserved to benefit future generations. Likewise, resources

of historical significance can be identified and maintained for the future.

Another category of resources benefiting from the coastal zone program are

those that have a potential for exploitation. With proper coastal zone manage-

ment, these resources, be they land development areas,. water areas,

depletable minerals, or many others; can be identified and the optimum

means of their exploitation or preservation outlined within a total resource

plan. I certainly envision that a properly developed plan would open new

avenues for economic development in the fields of housing, industry and

business, as well as preservation of our heritage and public domain. After

all, the purpose of coastal zone planning is to permit and encure orderly

development not to block orderly progress. New job opportunities with a

long range, well established base will be one result.

Of course, research in the coastal areas can also be developed and

improved through this program to more fully address the needs of our local

citizens in terms of available resources. From this research and the

defining and developing of our existing resources, I can foresee the arrival

of new technology, new products, and other features that will lend themselves

to an improved standard of living for our local residents. To put it simply,

coastal zone management can enable us to better manage our natural and

cultural reBources, I)oth of which a(l(l up to a 1.)(!tt(!r quality of life.

-5-

The second and third general areas of benefit from coastal zone manage -

ment both relate specifically to strictly human concerns --improvement of

efficiency in government and improvement of people government relations.

I have the feeling that the originators of coastal zone management legislation

did not specifically set out to address the need for improved human relations.

However, this, as I see it, can be the most valuable part of coastal zone

mana gement from a local standpoint.

I believe coastal zone management can serve to improve efficiency

at all levels of government, as well as how each level relates to each other.

Specifically, I look forward to having the many overlapping lines of authority

and conflicting jurisdictions of many agencies removed through proper

coastal zone management. Streamlining of government would benefit not only

citizens of the coastal zone but all people of the state. Nowhere could this

be better focused than to have a total overhaul of the many overlapping and

conflicting permit systems that presently exist at federal, state and local

levels. One of the real objections to a plan and implementation of coastal

zone management is from persons who beleive this to be just another

organization which must be consulted. Nothing should be further from the

truth. If a coastal zone management plan cannot cut through all of the red

tape and provide one flexible plan for development, it is not meeting the needs

of the people it serves and fails in the purpose for which it was conceived.

Coastal zone management can provide a single permit system that will enable

the average citizen to obtain necessary approvals for a worthwhile activity in

-6-

a far shorter length of time than that presently required. For example,

the Port of Gulfport and our other industrial development agencies are

presently burdened with a seemingly endless list of approvals that must

be obtained from federal, state and local agencies before starting a

dredging project or expanding terminal facilities. The delays incurred

in securing these approvals and starting a project add up to increased

expenditures of tax dollars, to say nothing of the revenues that are lost

as a reault of failing to complete improvements to facilities. Delays

such as this are felt throughout our economy. Coastal zone management

can greatly simplify the permitting process by reducing the number of

permits and by prescribing specific criteria by which activities can be

undertaken. It can and should also include in the management plan such

matters as spoil disposal methods and areas.

Because coastal zone management requires us to look far into the

future, I can foresee where local governments could realize a considerable

long-term savings of funds through insuring that all needs are covered

through a project today, and not postponed until tomorrow. We have

several examples of that presently on the coast. The DIberville Water

and Sewer Project comes immediately to mind.

But, foremost in this all, I believe that coastal zone management

is a program whereby people, working together can better themselves.

It is a program that can help to make all of us better citizens. I say this,

because coastal zone management can offer every citizen from the young

-7-

school child to the retiree the chance to become better educated, more

aware, and believe he or she is a part of determining their destiny and

that of those to follow.

The only way that coastal zone management can become a reality

is simple: Through participation of local citizens and local government

in the establishment of a plan which is both acceptable to them and is

designed to accomplish our long range goals. We have seen it before.

All of the best plans for the future have failed to be implemented where

the people have not been allowed to participate in forming them. Let us

not make the same mistake. Involve the average citizen first, and keep

him involved until the plan is written and then accepted.

The chance to participate in forming and choosing the alternatives

that will shape the Mississippi Gulf Coast in the future is something every-

one has had. That chance now comes with coastal zone management and

as a result it is something to cherish and use wisely. It is a chance also

to use on a local level a positive approach to land management, something

we have not had before. Instead of emphasizing what people cannot do, we

can in good faith join homebuilder, the merchant, and the fisherman in

determining what can be done, and done well. I beleive that coastal zone

management offers us the chance to develop the confidence and the responsi-

bility of all levels of government, especially of our local forms of government.

If we achieve that, coastal zone management will have succeeded without

any doubt.

One further word of caution: A plan, once developed, must provide

for the flexibility of constant and periodic updating to reflect our constantly

changing attitudes and life style.

These then are some of the benefits and precautions I see from the

local level resulting from coastal zone management. As with any sort of

benefits, there will be some costs involved. In this case, the costs are

the time and effort you and I as representatives of the people must put in

to cultivate public interest. I think that these benefits certainly justify the

costs.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE MISSISSIPPI MARINE RESOURCES COUNCIL

TO COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

Donald J. Cuevas
Vice Chairman, Mississippi Marine Resources Council

Even though the conference is being produced by the Mississippi-

Alabama Sea Grant Consortium for the Mississippi Marine Resources

Council, it is a pleasure for me personally, and as Vice Chairman of

the Council, to have the opportunity to participate, discuss, and possibly

enlighten some of those present on the "Relationship of the Mississippi

Marine Resources Council to Coastal Zone Management.

You heard Bruce Mattox present the purposes of the conference and

Senator Stone discuss the "Benefits to be Drawn from Coastal Zone

Management from the Federal Viewpoint.

The current members of the Mississippi Marine Resources Council

are listed on the back of your program. Chaired by the Governor and

functioning through a Vice Chairman and Executive Director, the Council

is composed of sixteen members appointed by the Governor to represent

the various segments of government, industry, and academic institutions.

Two members each from the House of Representatives and the State Senate

are represented. Academic institutions are represented by the directors

of the Board of Trustees of Institutions of Higher Learning, the Gulf Coast

Research Laboratory, and the Mississippi Sea Grant Consortium. The Con-

suiting Biologist of the Missigsippi Marine Conservation Commission and

-il-

the Director of the Mississippi Agricultural and Industrial Board, as well

as a representative of the Mississippi Research and Development Center

serve on the Council. Additionally, six members are appointed from the

public at large. The Council also has established an Advisory Committee

which is presently composed of nine members drawn from industry and

state, regional, and federal agencies. All members of the Council and

Advisory Committee serve without compensation.

Would you beleive that at the first meeting of the Mississippi Marine

Resources Council on June 25, 1969, the first topic of business was Bob

Everett, Vice Chairman (now deceased), appointed a special committee to

consider a Governor's Conference for Marine Sciences? The purposes of

that conference would be to achieve a sectionalism approach whereby the

"Executive Branch of the Federal Government might be stimulated into

action. " Five years later we have accomplished our first action of business,

if even for a different purpose!

At any rate, at first blush my topic sounded simple, an easy enough

request. Executive Order Number 45 issued by Governor John Bell Williams

created the Mississippi Marine Resources Council in 1969 as an adjunct to

the Agricultural and Industrial Board until the Legislature implemented the

Council as a part of State Government through legislation passed in 1970.

The Council was created, oversimplified, with a mandate to study.,

develop, and manage the marine resources of the state. In the "wisdom"

of the Legislature, let us examine the preamble to House Bill #294:

-12-

An Act creating the Mississippi Marine Resources Council
to provide for the functions, policies and duties of said
Council in the field of marine sciences and resources
development of the coastal, offshore and water resources
of the state; to authorize the coordination of said Council's
programs with related agencies of the state, the United
State Government and sister states in the field of marine
resources and development; to set goals of said Council
to increase competent human resources in order to promote
economic growth in the field of marine sciences...

It was not enough to create us and let us seek our own level of

participation. They had to compound it and include a responsibility for

just about every state agency, all the universities, neighboring states

and the Federal Government and all its marine programs. At that time

the Federal Government did not even have an ongoing program. You can

begin to see some of the problems we faced.

Some of these problems were not new to Mississippi. Coastal zone

or marine related problems are not new. When the Portuguese discovered

the Mississippi Coast in the 1500's, when first explored by LaSalle in the

1600's, and when later in the 1600's D'Iberville established Biloxi, Ocean

Springs and then Bay St. Louis was settled, the first problems were con-

cerned with finding healthful building sites, safe water supplies, adequate

marine transportation, and effective military defenses.

Does that sound like the 1600's? It sounds more like the problems

of today that we see and hear on television and read about daily. In fact,

the word superport that we are hearing so much about now as a brand

new concept has, in effect, been around a long time, too. Did you know

that before 1750 Ship Island functioned in this capacity? In the early

-13-

17001 s we had a superport at Ship Island that was off-loading deep draft

vessels onto shallow draft barges and boats for trans-shipping to Biloxi,

New Orleans, along the Gulf Coast, and up the Mississippi River.

Recognizing that many problems exist and their varied solutions are

imp Iortant, not only to the state and nation as political subdivisions but

to each and every citizen, it is a continuing challenge for our political

leaders and Legislators to fund programs and a constant challenge to our

Council to solve these problems in a meaningful and lasting manner for the

benefit of everyone, if possible.

In 1973 the Legislature enacted the Coastal Wetlands Protection Act

largely through the efforts of Representative Gerald Blessey, one of our

members, and Governor Waller, The Mississippi Marine Resources

Council was selected or designated as the enforcing authority, which

was a logical assignment in view of our purposes. This bill requires the

preservation of the state's public wetlands except for a higher public use.

Our other activities are aimed towards conservation or the beneficial

consumption or development thereof.

Mississippi began its activities by providing matching funds for Sea

Grant through the University's Marine Center and in Coastal Zone Manage-

ment through a series of studies or investigations. Actually trying to

second-guess the federal programs and funding requirements, we were

gearing our approach and plans to a plan application based on what we

thought would be required for U. S. approval.

-14-

After several false starts and Presidential impounding of appro-

priated funds, we settled down to developing a Plan for Coastal Zone

Management in Mississippi, a plan that is designed to be implemented

and is, in fact, now in the process of positive development.

Actually, Mississippi was the first state to apply for coastal zone

management funding. However, as it turned out, our application was

premature, but was used to assist the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration and the Office of Coastal Environment in establishing

guidelines for applications and funding. Maybe our early efforts were

more beneficial than we first thought.

Our program for identifying the issues and problems for our plan-

ning for coastal zone management is plagued by similar conflicts as

experienced by other states when various groups and individuals pursue

their legitimate interests.

Our planning for coastal zone management ranks the order of

conflict by importance as we see them today:

1. Land Use and Population- -Land use is basic to most problems

in the coastal zone. Limited availability of land in shore areas intensi-

fies competition for residential, commercial and industrial use. Un-

regulated development creates burdens on transportation, water, sewage,

and utilities. Presently, approximately a quarter-million persons (over

seventy per cent of coastal counties population) live within ten miles of

the coastline. This is up twenty-five per cent from 1960 and is expected

to double by 1990.

-15-

2. Water Pollution--A major problem arising from unregulated

land use is that of water pollution. Inadequate or non-existent waste

water treatment facilities has resulted in extreme conditions of water

pollution. The closure of seventy per cent of our oyster fishing areas

is testimony to the problem. More vocal concern has been evident

through the warnings advising against water contact on our beaches.

The building industry also remembers the moratorium placed on con-

struction due to sewage pollution.

3. Coastal Zone Fisheries--This industry, worth $11 million

in dock side values and over $55 million in add-on value, is not with-

out its conflicts from pollution and other coastal zone uses. New con-

cepts must be developed and implemented to change and improve the

state's fisheries.

4. Wetlands Cons ervation- Utilization- -Use and preservation of

coastal wetlands is closely tied to land use and competition for space.

Mississippi now has an effective Coastal Wetlands Protection Act that

should go a long way in balancing preservation and development of these

areas. Many conflicts and serious questions of ownership still need to

be resolved to preserve Mississippi's dwindling wetlands, estimated to

be sixty-four thousand acres.

5. Petroleum Extraction and Handling --Federal leasing of the

Outer Continental Shelf and proposed leasing of state water bottoms for

-16-

petroleum and mineral extraction, coupled with the possibility of develop-

ing a superport with the attendant problems of cargo spills presents a

unique set of problems within the coastal zone area. Add to this the state

versus federal jurisdictional conflict and the problem becomes serious in

many ways and needs resolution.

6. Natural Disasters--I think when we hear the word "Camille"

nothing else needs to be said about the problems associated with hurricanes.

But it is a fact that these natural disasters do affect the coastal zone by

damage, flooding, rainfall, and drainage from adjacent or upland river

basins.

7. Industrial Development- -Industrial development is actively pur-

sued throughout the coastal zone, not only in Mississippi, but throughout

the nation. Some of these problems are providing an adequate water supply

for industrial uses and coolant purposes, as well as many problems associat-

ed with waste disposal. These are some of the pressures that require atten-

tion in the coastal zone area associated with the area's economic development.

8. Transportation and Navigation- -Navigation is an integral part of

the Mississippi Gulf Coast. The need for channels, port access, dock-side

facilities, spoil disposal and other items associated with transportation

presents a continuing need for adequate management within the coastal zone.

These eight items represent the general grouping and ranking of our

problems constituting the challenge to develop an effective and meaningful

coastal zone management plan.

-17-

In addressing our attention to the goals and objectives as a solution

for Mississippi's actual coastal zone management program, we will

coordinate our effort with the federal program as set forth by Congress.

There are five basic or general requirements to be met in attaining our

goals and objectives.

1. We will develop available resources for the economic benefit

of Mississippi's citizens in an orderly and responsible manner that will

preserve values and maintain options for future generations.

2. We will provide onVironmental protection for the natural resources

and inhabitants of this state through a continuing inventory of natural re-

sources, their requirements and the ecosystems they support through a

plan for optimum utilization, minimizing conflict and impingement of the

natural environment.

3. We will focus marine research on coastal zone problems estab-

lishing mechanisms necessary for identifying, developing, and coordinating

management requirement's for problems within the area.

4. We will develop a means for providing resolution of resource

usage conflicts, addressing the problems of today and establishing long-

term concepts and alternatives. A major undertaking will be the necessity

of conducting a program of public education and a continual monitoring of

the results to stay alert to the effectiveness of the methods employed.

5. We have already begun facilitating coordination of activities with

various agencies involved in the coastal zone through uniform permitting

-18-

procedures currently included under the Wetlands Protection Act. It

is anticipated that we will be successful in simplifying public involvement

with all agencies and participants in the coastal zone in the near future to

resolve any conflicts that may occur on a uniform and equitable basis for

all parties concerned.

A syndicated coorespondent recently warned, "Beware of politicians

bearing grants. " However, in closing I wish to re-emphasize our con-

currence in the Federal Coastal Zone Management Program and at the

same time invite your support seeking the Department of Commerce and

NOAA to establish separate programs for the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf

of Mexico.

In previous discussions with Dave Wallace and Bob Knecht I ex-

pressed a belief that our problems are different in the Gulf . The Miss-

issippi River, Gulf Stream, numerous islands, minimal temperature

variations, hurricanes, contiguous international boundaries, and other

things make the Gulf of Mexico unique.

There are only five states involved in the United States on the Gulf,

a small manageable group. Any program implementation could be

executed quickly and results monitored almostly instantly from one air-

craft overflight. I hope this will become an accomplished fact soon.

THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR MISSISSIPPI

James B. Rucker, Ph. D. , Executive Director
Mississippi Marine Resources Council

The conference program indicates that I am to discuss the Coastal Zone

Management Plan for Mississippi. There is no Coastal Zone Management Plan

for Mississippi yet. Presently, there are only policy objectives and planned

program development activities. The body of my talk will be to describe the

policy objectives and activities that will lead to the development of a State

Coastal Zone Management Plan incrementally over the next three years.

There are five policy objectives of coastal zone management in Mississippi.

These are in general terms.

1. We must first define the boundary as that of the state coastal zone subject to

the management program. Presently, the Council has set the landward planning

boundary as that of the northern boundary of the three coastal counties. The

landward boundary of the state coastal zone, subject to the management program,

will no doubt be more narrowly defined and extend landward only to the extent

necessary to control those shoreland uses which have a direct and significant

impact on coastal znd esturine waters. We feel it is absolutely essential

that the general public be provided the opportunity to fully participate in

this important conceptual and operational issue. Additionally, since no

single coastal zone boundary is going to meet the needs of each state, the

actions of our neighboring states are of substantial interest and concern to

Mississippi. For this reason, Mississippi will host a Gulf States Coastal

-21-

Zone Conference in September. This conference will provide sister

states an opportunity to share concepts and address common ob-

jectives.

2. A second major policy objective is to identify permissible land and

water uses which have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters.

It is essential to give full consideration to the needs and requirements of

at least the following eight activities:

1. Industry
2. Commerce
3. Residential Development
4. Recreation
5. Mineral Extraction and Fossil Fuels
6. Transportation and Navigation
7. Waste Disposal
8. Fisheries

Each of these activities can lay legitimate claim to the use of resources

in the coastal zone. Since the economic underpinning of the coastal economy

depends on a diverse economic base it is desirable to use our resources to

support a variety of use needs. However, it will be necessary to categorize

the nature, location, and scope of conflicts of current and anticipated coastal

land and water use. We will begin examining some of these needs and con-

flicts in our workshops this afternoon.

3. The third major policy objective is to develop criteria for designating

geographic areas of particular concern in the Mississippi coastal zone. For

example, we need to objectively establish criteria to identify those geographic

areas that are intrinsically suited for intensive use or development, and like-

wise, those areas that are environmentally frail and essential to the living

-22-

resource habitat and food web such as coastal wetlands, those areas of

urban concentration where shoreline utilization and water use are highly

competitive, those areas of significant hazard due to storms, and those

areas of historic or esthetic value.

4. The fourth major policy objective is to establish priority use guide-

lines, especially in areas of particular concern. These guidelines will

provide the state and local governments with a common reference for

resolving use conflicts, and will provide the basis for necessary regula-

tion of land and water uses in the coastal zone.

5. And lastly, a major policy objective is to describe the organizational

structure and intergovernmental arrangements needed to develop and

maintain an effective coordinated management process, and to identify or

establish the means by which the state, together with other levels of

government, can exert necessary control over land and water uses in the

coastal zone. It should be recognized that present institutional arrange-

ments for planning and resolving conflicting uses of waters and shorelands

in Mississippi as in most other coastal states are inadequate to deal with

growing competing demands.

These then are the five major policy objectives. We recognize that

it will not be accomplished easily or overnight. However, we further

realize that unless a program of coastal zone management is undertaken

we will continue to live from crisis to crisis, from conflict to conflict.

Now let me describe briefly the five major areas of program

_23-

activity that will take place during the three year development period:

1. The first area of activity is that of agency coordination. The Coastal

Zone Management Program will be developed using to the greatest possible

extent information and policies already developed by other agencies. The

objective of this activity is to achieve as complete coordination and inte-

gration as possible of all local, regional, state and federal programs.

This will be a continuing activity throughout the development period.

2. A second area of activity is planning data development. The activity

will continue through the development period but will be more intense

during the first half. The purpose of this activity is to acquire and evaluate

existing studies, plans and policies developed by other agencies, and to

utilize and build upon the data and studies that have been developed. Where

information is nonexistent or inadequate the Council will undertake to

develop this data through specific contracts. Based on the information.

acquired, the Council through mechanisms such as joint boards and common

review procedures, shall develop the broad provisional policy goals and

options for coastal zone management in concert with appropriate concerned

agencies.

3. The third area of activity is that of policy development. Using all

available information, policies addressing each of the five objectives I

discussed previously will be evolved as advised through mechanisms of

public participation.

4. The fourth area of activity is to develop full public participation. The

-24-

objective of this activity is above and beyond the public hearings that are

required by the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act. Since public

attitudes and views are the cornerstone for setting sound policies, the

public will be given an early opportunity to participate in coastal zone

management design.

5. The fifth area is legal activities. Tasks in the area include a con-

tinuing review of evolving coastal zone management policies to determine

the extent to which existing state agency powers are able to satisfy the

regulative and control requirements for a Coastal Zone Management

Program. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act specifically re-

quires that the authorized coastal zone management agency have the legal

authority to:

1. Regulate land and water uses in the coastal zone in
accordance with the state plan.
2. Control development in the coastal zone.
3. Resolve conflicts among competing users.
4. Acquire fee simple, or less than fee simple, interest
in property to achieve conformance with the Coastal
Zone Management Program.

Since these powers clearly exceed the existing legal authority of

the Mississippi Marine Resources Council or any other existing state

agency, attendant legal tasks will be to review the desired policies and

recommend and evaluate alternate mechanisms by which these require-

ments can be achieved. Drafting of necessary legislative amendments

and bills will fall within this area of activity.

This activity will proceed incrementally during each of the legis-

-25-

lative sessions that occur during the program development period. The

final product should be an agency empowered by a publicy acceptable set

of statutes that meet the spirit and aforementioned substance of the Federal

Coastal Zone Management Act.

In summary, let me remind you that coastal Mississippi is experienc-

ing extraordinary growth. The population of coastal counties has increased

twenty4ive percent in the past decade. Presently, the population stands at

nearly 250, 000. Over seventy percent live within ten miles of the shoreline

where population densities reach 3, 500 per square mile. By 1990 planners

predict our population will double and exceed a half million residents and

will serve a yearly influx of several million visitors. This growth in pop-

ulation has been accompanied by economic growth and wholesome economic

diversification. These diverse interests lay legitimate claim to use of the

waters and coastal areas of the state. The legitimate needs of these diverse

interests must be recognized and we must begin now to establish the mechanisms

for resolving conflicts among competing users of the state's coastal resources.

-26-

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT--AN OVERVIEW FROM THE FEDERAL VIEWPOINT

Robert W. Knecht
Director, Office of Coastal Environment, NOAA

What I would like to do in my time is try to show how Washington's

environment in this business of coastal zone management is somewhat

sensible. I would like to explain to you why the National Government needs

to be involved in coastal zone management, which is a rather local issue in

many aspects. In order to do this I will give a little of the background

leading to the passage of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,

and give you some of the philosophy contained in the Act. I will talk a bit

about our progress to date in implementing the legislation, what is going on

in other coastal states outside of Mississippi, and then close by discussing

some of the key relationships that exist in coastal zone management from

our point of view.

How did the Federal Government get involved? Of course, the problems

of the coastal zone have been with us for a long time. In fact, it does not take

much thought to realize the coasts have played an important part in the develop-

ment of our country from the very beginning. The coast has been the site of

the first settlements, the first defenses of the country, the first economic and

industrial development in the country, so has always been important.

Beginning in the late 50's and early 60's the pressures on the coast have

increased tremendously. More and more of our people have more time,

mobility, affluence, and the inclination to go to the coast and seek recreation.

-Z7-

Our ports have needed expanding and modernizing to compete in the inter-

locking economies of the world. Our fishing has been under pressure from

pollution and from international fishing forces. The conflicts are becoming

clearly visible to everyone.

States, of course, were not idle during this time. State governments

began to pass legislation that would deal with some of these problems.

Wetlands legislation was passed up and down the Atlantic Seaboard beginning

in the early 60's. Beach access legislation, establishing a public right to

use the beach for recreational purposes, was established in Texas and Oregon.

Individual problems began to be dealt with on a one to one basis.

In general, these efforts at the state level were not comprehensive and

were not very well supported in terms of financial underpinnings. Basically,

the problems were zoning and local policies that were, understadibly, strongly

influenced by the economic well-being of that community. Also, federal

policies were established and operated separately by a myraid of federal

agencies. This directly affected how the coast was developed and how the land

and water were used.

There was a series of studies at the national level that began in the 1960's.

The National Estuaries Study, the National Estuarine Pollution Study, the

Stratton Commission Study and others pointed to the need for legislation at the

federal level and legislation at state levels to encourage a more comprehensive

approach to managing coastal resources. The studies indicated that federal

legislation was needed for at least three reasons --to provide financial assistance

-28-

and encouragement to states to develop comprehensive programs at the

state level in cooperation with local governments, to bring about federal

decisions that affect the coast with rational and comprehensive state

programs to better marshal federal actions that affect states and to

see that the national interest in the coastal zone is contained within com-

prehensive state programs. The Coastal Zone Management Act was

passed in 1972 to try to meet these needs. This was after three years

of Congressional debate on all sides of the issue and after some additional

studies had been undertaken.

There are four main features in the legislation that I think are impor-

tant. The First feature is that it is a voluntary program. No state is

required to join the federal program or be a part of it or apply for grants.

It is neither regulatory nor mandatory. The Act points to the state level

of government as the one that should take the initiative to develop a compre-

hensive, state-wide view to the problem, working closely with the local

government. It indicates that the federal role is one of reviewing the

adequacy of the processes that states are asked to adopt, adequacy of the

process and not individual land and water use decisions. Clearly, the

federal role is not one of the federal zoning nor one of federal dictation

to states with regard to how to use a certain'stretch of water or plot of

coastal land. It simply is designed to show the adequacy of the process

that the states are encouraged to adopt. The federal program in the Act is

not purely an environmental measure. It is a balanced measure, recognizing

-29-

that the coasts are important for ecological, environmental and recreational

purposes, but also they are essential for economic development that must

proceed for the social good. It calls for management, not necessarily in all

instances for environmental protection even though environmental protection

has to be an important part of any comprehensive program. These seem to

be the four key aspects of the federal legislation.

Since it is voluntary, incentives will have to be provided in order to

encourage states and local governments to become involved. These incentives

are of two kinds --financial grants and leverage. Once the state has an approved

management program, then federal actions that affect that state's coast have

to be consistent with that approved state program. States are allowed to apply

for up to three annual grants for planning before they have to submit a manage-

ment program for federal approval. When the management program is sub-

mitted at the end of the three year period, then grants are available to assist

the state in operating and implementing that program. These grants should

be three or four times larger than the planning grants considering the author-

ization levels in the legislation.

What is the status of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Program?

Briefly, twenty-seven of thirty coastal states have applied for and have

received financial grants to begin the planning process as of June 30. We

are very pleased at the fact that essentially all of the coastal states of the

United States, and this includes the Great Lakefi statet3, liave applied for and
received grants to start the process. Mississippi received a little over

-30-

$100, 000 in federal grants. Not a large sum, we hope this can be larger

in the future. It will surely be larger when the program is finally approved.

As was mentioned, Mississippi's application was the first one received,

long before we had our forms printed or our processes established. It was

helpful in providing guidance to deal with the application question, and we

very much appreciate the early enthusiasm of the Mississippi group.

Just recently there is another grant program, the Estuarine Sanctuary

Grant Program, whereby federal assistance is provided to states to acquire

and operate estuary sanctuaries for research and educational purposes. We

have let the first of those grants to the state of Oregon for $825, 000 to

acquire a particularly pristine estuary along the coast of Oregon. During

the current year beginning July 1 we had $12 million available again to let

grants this year to continue the work. We hope that substantially more money

will be available in future years to assist states in actually operating approved

programs.

During the remainder of my time I would like to discuss a few of the

key relationships that seem to us to be necessary for success in this business.

Two of them that stand out at the top of this list are, of course, state-local

relationships and state-federal relationships. It is absolutely fundamental

that a good information base and a good set of inventories exist, which must

underlie the development of the coastal zone management program. The

pros and cons of developing it must 1)(! known to bave a managwylent program.

It seems to me that the responsibilities incumbent on the state coastal zone

-31-

management entity, which in this case is the Council, are to make clear

to programs like Sea Grant, what the research needs are, what their

inventory requirements are, what their other technical problems are

and where the gaps in understanding exist so that the institutions can be

responsive.

It seems to me, on the other side, the academic institutions, Sea

Grant in particular, should look seriously at the state's view of its

problems and not feel that it really understands the problems better than

the officials of the state that are charged with developing solutions. I

-have been in the university environmentand I know its tendencies which

must be overcome. I sense in talking to people here that a good relation-

ship has developed and the Sea Grant Program is viewed as responsive to

the state's needs.

The state coastal zone management entity versus the public, or the

people of the state, is another entity which must be dicussed. After all,

this process and activity is proposed for the public good. The public must

be involved from the beginning. It must be clear that this is their program

for their good and not simply "institution building" on the part of the bureau-

cracy.

The state coastal zone management entity and other state agencies

propose a very tricky relationship, one of the more difficult ones, but yet

critically important to the success of the program. The coastal zone manage-

ment agency, the Council in this case, is usually the "newest boy on the block"

-32-

in the family of state agencies and bureaucracies and, as such, has very

little standing in many instances. In the case of Mississippi, with a

Council that involves the Governor as Chairman, it would seem that some

of these problems will be overcome at the onset.

Nevertheless, other problems are prevalent. The Council is not

an operating arm of the State Government. Also involved are the highway

department, planning office, department of community development,

department of natural resources, and many other agencies. Clearly, the

Council, the coastal zone management entity at the state level, has to

bring these agencies into the picture early and effectively and show them

why it is important that they are involved and why their objectives will be

achieved more effectively by working with the Council rather than against it.

The state coastal zone management agency and the private sector

must also be considered. No coastal zone management program would be

complete or be likely to succeed politically if there was a continuing strong

opposition from the private sector, which will continue to be, perhaps, the

largest user of the coastal zone. Commercial fishing, recreation, energy

facilities and other items in the coastal zone all have to be coordinated or

rationally managed for the public good. Rational coastal zone management

will ultimately benefit all of these private sector users. There is a consider-

able body of competence and experience in the private sector that can be used

to good advantage as these plans and programs are developed.

The state-local relationship is undoubtedly the most difficult and yet

_33-

the most important to the success of the overall program. This has been

mentioned several times by the speakers earlier this morning. For the

mo'st part, local governments now have the responsibility for managing

land and water uses in the coastal zone and they are relunctant to give up

this responsibility. This is understandably true. However, the whole

thrust of the coastal zone management movement is that land and water

use decisions that have more than local impact often have to be made.

Generally, a regional or a state perspective's a national perspective. The

state coastal zone management program must provide the same kind of

incentive for local governments that the Federal Act priov-ides for state

governments in order for this thing to succeed. A very important job of

the state enity, it seems to me, will be to propose some kinds of incentives

that will be important enough to local governments to secure their involve-

ment in a positive way. Experience has shown that unless local government

is directly and effectively involved from the beginning and they view it as

their plan as well as a state plan, then when the time comes to pass the

legislation in the state capitol, it will not pass.

State-federal relationships in coastal zone management are quite

important for several reasons. The siting of certain facilities in the coastal

zone turns out to be a matter of not only local and state interest but national

interest. This is most directly seen in connection with t'.@e siting of energy

related facilities, deep water ports, large refineries, large oil terminals,

or power generation plants. These often cannot be dealt with on a local or

-34-

even on a state basis. The Coastal Zone Management Act requires the

state to have its program federally approved so that it has a process

built in for adequately considering the national interest in the siting of

these facilities that have more than a state-wide interest. Therefore, it

is very important that the state coastal zone management agency work

closely with the relevant federal agencies from the beginning.

In closing, I believe my comments can be summed up in one simple

expression- -"enlightened self interest. " To achieve this the people should

be involved and organizations must be involved. I truly believe that all of

the objectives of coastal zone management, whether private, public, local,

regional, or state, can be achieved by a comprehensive coastal zone manage-

ment program. As you well know, we only have to step across the street

and view the debris still left from Camille to realize what the wrong kind

of development in the wrong location can do. I think most of us are convinced

that the seas and their coastal margins hold much benefit for mankind. I

believe the proper goal of coastal zone management is to obtain these

benefits on a continuing basis with minimum risk both to the environment

and to ourselves.

-35-

LUNCHEON ADDRESS INTRODUCTION

Roland Weeks, Jr.
President and General Manager, Gulf Publishing, Inc.

We are particularly pleased and privileged today to have a man from

another southern state, the State of Texas, who has been keenly interested

in coastal zone management for many years. As a ranking State Senator

and Chairman of the Texas Coastal and Marine Council, he has been extremely

active in efforts to promote good coastal zone management, not only in Texas,

but throughout the country.

Our speaker lives in Galveston, Texas. He is a graduate of Texas

A&M University and has a law degree from the University of Texas, which

he received in 1951.

He was a member of the Texas House of Representatives from 1954

to 1958, and has been in the Texas State Senate since 1960. This makes

him the third ranking Senator in that large state. He is Chairman of the

Senate Committee on Juris Prudence and Chairman of the Senate Rules

Committee.

Recently he was elected chairman of the relatively new Coastal

States Organization. This is a group of men and women representing

thirty coastal states. This organization is encouraging those folks in

Wa8hington, that we like to cneourage, to patim legimlation which will

help us develop the coastal /,ones of IlwHe thi rty HlateH in an orde rly

manner. I present Aaron Robert "Babe" Schwartz.

-37-

LUNCHEON ADDRESS

Aaron R. Schwartz
Chairman, Coastal States Organization

I am delighted to be here as a representative of the Coastal States

Organization, and I hope, as a representative of a southern state.

I make these talks around the countryside from time to time, and

am delighted to be able to do so because I like to talk about the common

problems that face us in the coastal zone. Whether you live in Texas,

Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana or Florida there are many things that

happen to all of us and they happen to us every day. They have been

happening for a long time. When I sit at these conferences and listen to

intelligent folks discuss the problems and the methods of arriving at

solutions, I always like to go back to what we were doing about it in the

first place. Why are we even concerned about it? We are concerned

because, basically, we are trying to preserve the coastal areas of this

great nation. We are trying to preserve the coastal environment for

future generations who have to live on this earth, who will live on the

coast, and who will have to survive on the basis of whether or not there

is a coastal environment. We are concerned whether the oceans are

alive or whether they are dead, whether there is a beach for recreational

purposes, or even whether there is anything there worthy of being there.

-39-

We must remember that we are the first generation of human

beings in the history of this planet who are leaving it in worse shape

than we found it. From the standpoint of many of its environmental

concerns, we are the first group on the earth who have really done more

to destroy it than we have done to enhance its use and availability. So

far as I can see, and as far as I have been told, we have reversed the

process of what people did for so long for future generations to come.

We have almost used up the earth, and ocean dumping is a good

example of that. Ocean dumping is going on. In fact, there is an

Environmental Protection Agency-hearing being conducted. right now

in Florida. I will tell you about how all that started. Dupont, whose

slogan is "Better Living Through Chemistry, " applied for an application

to dump in the Gulf of Mexico along with some other 11good" citizens,

Shell Oil Company and General Analine. They are dumping a million

tons of industrial wastes in an area 150 miles from my hometown.

This is in an area sixteen miles square. I testified against Dupont and

in the process found out that Dupont just happened to have another

application pending, but it was over in Louisiana. The dump site was

the same site we have here in Texas--150 miles from my hometown.

Guess where the waste was coming from? The waste that Dupont

wants to dump 150 miles off the Galveston coast is coming from Belle,

West Virginia. They have to bring it to Texas?

After we raised a little cane (We call it "hell!"), Dupont found

they had made a mistake. They did not want to dump at that site so

-40-

there was an error in their application. They changed that site in order

not to be heard on the Texas application and made another mistake.

Governor Edwards over in Louisiana took a position, which I think is

enviable in the coastal states, and stated he, as well as Louisiana, is

against ALL ocean dumping. Guess where they are hearing now?

They are now having hearings in Florida. Now Florida, at least,

is organized and has the Attorney General in Alabama, the Attorney

General in Mississippi and the Florida forces all rallied to fight this

ocean dumping permit by Dupont. I have yet to figure out what Dupont

feels is the matter with dumping their wastes in West Virginia. I do

not know why we are "blessed" with their wanting to dump their wastes

in the Gulf of Mexico. At any rate, this is an example of why we need

to get together and find out what is happening. While I am Chairman

of the Coastal States Organization I will work for some kind of communi-

cation between the states, which, of course, will be good for everybody.

Shell Oil Company in Texas is dumping their wastes 150 miles

from Galveston. Shell Oil Company in Louisiana, which is producing

the same wastes as the Texas plant, is building an incinerator to burn

their wastes. They cannot dump in the ocean so they are going to do

something else about it. This is proof again that if some states do

something affirmatively, they can bring about change. By communicating

with each other, we can bring about a continuity of thought about these

kinds of problems.

-41-

The Outer Continental Shelf leasing problem is near and dear to

the hearts of all of us. On the East Coast they are fighting Outer

Continental Shelf leasing. They are fighting oil production off the

East Coast. In California they are asking for a moratorium again on the

leasing by the Federal Government, as well as a moratorium on all

Outer Continental Shelf plans. We of the Coastal States Organization

are discussing the possibility of advancing some legislative program

which might give the adjacent states in the coastal areas participation

in the federal revenues from the Outer Continental Shelf leasing. The

majority of the impact of this oil and gas production is going to be on

the land of the states adjacent to that production

The same rule applies to the offshore petroleum terminals or

deepwater ports. If you are going to have an offshore terminal in your

area, then the impact of that terminal will be where the oil comes to

the land, where the refinery is located, and where the water is used

from your subsurface water supply, river or ground water supply.

The impact is tremendous in any area. It is already here in

your state. All of us here are from coastal states, and youknow that

we have reached the point in Texas and Louisiana where the impact

from oil production is terrific. Governor Edwards from Louisiana has

said he is willing to let someone else take some of this "largess." He is

willing to let someone else share in the "joy" of refining these crude oil

products. I hope that in our area over in Texas we will come to that

-42-

same conclusion. There comes a time when you reach the limit as to

the number of refineries you can stand.

We have other problems in our part of the country on the Bay

Shore of Galveston County where the coastal lands are subsiding. The

United States Geological Survey did a study of the subsidence in our

area to establish what was happening to us. They found that there were

places in this area in Galveston and Harris Counties and in Houston,

Texas, that had sunk from four to nine feet in a ten or fifteen year

period. These places would continue to sink for another four feet in

ten more years if the taking of the underground water was not stopped.

This report was developed in 1969, and a paper on this subject was

delivered in Tokyo.

The United States Geological Survey prepared that study. This

paper was then delivered by one of those gentlemen in Tokyo at a con-

ference of geologists. It was never delivered to the State Senator from

that district who happens to be me. If the report was delivered to the

Chamber of Commerce, it was delivered to the files and the shredders.

The Chamber burns things like that because that would retard "progress.

No Chamber of Commerce would want anything like that to happen

knowingly. It never got to the Texas Legislature. As far as I know, it

never got to anyone except the people who were in Tokyo. Now this

subsidence is one of the most serious problems in our whole area.

-43-

,The most recent survey shows that water by the millions of

gallons is used every day for an industrial area called Bay Port,

right on the Bay Shore, right at the Houston Ship Channel. They

keep building levees around the industrial sites because the indus-

tries can afford it. However, the folks who live in two little towns

called Keene and Seabrooke just happen to be sinking out of sight.

The San Jacinto Monument, which is our pride and joy, is sinking

straight down. It has sunk four feet and we now have a lake which

once was a rectangular reflecting pool. It is going to continue to sink

and the United States Geological Survey has told us it may sink

another eighteen feet.

There are thousands of people in Harris and Galveston Counties

who live only eight feet above mean, low tide. The hurricane tide of

Hurricane Carla was fifteen feet. When you get serious, you look out

there at all those developers. They are not developing on the flood

plain. They are developing on dry land, but it is not going to be dry

when the mortgage is finally paid out. In the year 2000 they are going

to own underwater homes. However, the loan companies will still lend

the money and the developers are still developing in that area. Since

this continues to happen, coastal zone management is something more

than a nice way for Bob Knecht to make a living, for you and me to

talk about, and for universities to study about.

-44-

In the Hurricane Awareness Program, we in Texas finally per-

suaded the Coastal Marine Council to print a hurricane awareness

chart which shows people what is going to go underwater in 1974 if

a hurricane like that in 1961 comes along.

There are, of course, other problems which I will not go into

now. However, some of these can be alleviated through interstate

cooperation. We can get together and do better things in marine

transportation, in the preservation of the Gulf, and save our citi-

zens from being imposed upon by the sale of land which will become

worthless. We can, in fact, serve industry better by providing some

sort of legitimate industry siting plan or some baseline,plans for

industrial siting. We can make projections about fresh water inflow that

is necessary to the bays and estuaries. We can decide how much the area

can stand in terms of development before the water supply runs out, and

if there is, indeed, and underground water supply available to meet

the demands in the future.

You cannot let everyone who wants to locate somewhere locate

there, and do everything they want anymore in the society in which we

live. These are the things that, I hope, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi,

Louisiana, and Florida can get together on. These are the kinds of

things that the states of the Atlantic Seaboard can get together on, and

that the Pacific Coast states can get together on. I trust we can develop

policy which will be listened to on a national level.

-45-

In speaking to Bob Knecht, we talked about the possibility that

in Outer Continental Shelf leasing we could, perhaps, provide under

those oil and gas leases that the land site impact on the states be a

concern. Anyone who entered such a lease might have to meet the

coastal zone management requirements of the state adjacent to the

production. This is an area in which the states' rights mean something.

This is an area in which the states can have a voice. In my judgement,

the states have that voice through the Coastal States Organization.

The states have that voice through you.

You folks who have assembled know what we have to do. It should

be done through your universities who are doing baseline studies. The

University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology has the finest geo-

logic atlas of the Gulf Coast that has been produced for the Texas Coast.

I know that you are looking at that in Mississippi. Also, I know all

the states are doing the same work and it is good work. It is the basis

of everything we are going to do in coastal zone management.

We have a Sea Grant Program at Texas A&M, which is the Sea

G rant University in Texas. We have a university that is dedicated to

coastal marine law. Use the universities, legislators, Senators,

and friends to pump up some money for it. And, if you please, demand

it a little bit sometimes.

-46-

You know you can get the attention of the cities, too. I have a

newspaper clipping which quotes a mayor from an Alabama town. The

article is entitled "City Can't Fund Sewage Plant." The great line by

the mayor in this article is where he says even if the bonds could be

issued, he would not be a part of taxing persons on welfare and social

security $25 a month just so a few people could wallow in Roseberry

Creek. You know that is not what he is protecting. I hate to tell the

man, but he is not talking about protecting those social security and

welfare folks. He has somebody else he is protecting from that bond

issue. That has been my experience. If this mayor were here I would

have quite a debate with him about who he is protecting, because I

know who the city of Galveston was protecting. They were not worried

about any social security and welfare recipients. They were protecting

a bunch of "fat cats" who did not want to pay any more taxes.

The fact that they were willing to sacrafice the health of the

people they were elected to represent has nothing to do with wallowing

in Roseberry Creek or swimming in Alfords Bayou or in the Gulf of

Mexico, for that matter. It has nothing to do with a few people swim-

ming somewhere or a few people enjoying some recreation. It has to

do with the health of the citizens in the state and in the county and in

the municipality that is concerned. This problem exists here in Missis-

sippi and everybody here knows it. It exists in Alabama, Texas, and

.oo

-47-

every-where that there are cities that are not taking care of their sew-

age treatment facilities. It exists everywhere there is an industry that

is not required to meet the pollution and water quality standards. It

exists everywhere that human beings exist. Something can be done

about it by people who care enough to do something about it.

-.48-

PANEL DISCUSSION ON AREAS OF CRITICAL CONCERN

WITHIN COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

FISHERIES

William J. Demoran
Consulting Biologist, Mississippi Marine Conservation Commission
Member, Mississippi Marine Resources Council
Marine Biologist, Gulf Coast Research Laboratory

The marine fishing industry in the State of Mississippi has had a

long, colorful and interesting past. At one time it occupied a high posi-

tion among fishery producing states in this country. Now it does not

enjoy the position that it held in the past even though fishing is still one

of the most important industries in the State, and particularly on the Coast.

The industry has been plagued by sudden decreases in production

in recent years. In 1961, for example, shrimp production in the State

declined fifty-four percent below the production of the previous year.

This was attributed to extremely unfavorable climatological and hydro-

graphic conditions. Some of these declines in production are caused by

natural phenomena, while others are caused by man's activities.

A good case in point here involves the oyster industry of the State.

From 1927 to the present time, oyster production in the State of Missis-

sippi has fluctuated considerably with production ranging from 400, 000 barrels

of oysters in 1927 to 22, 000 barrels in 1970. Such extrerrie f1lictLiations in

this fishery were brought about by various factors.

-49-

The completion of the levee system on the lower Mississippi River

can be cited as having the greatest effect on oyster production in the

western portion of the Mississippi Sound. Gunter (1952) aptly describes

the situation in a paper entitled The Relationship of the Bonnet Carrel

Spillway to Oyster Beds in Mississippi Sound and the "Louisiana Marsh''

with a Report on the 1950 Opening. The opening of the Bonnet Carrel

Spillway in 1950 is reflected in the oyster production of the State of

Mississippi. Immediately following the opening of the spillway, a dieoff

due to too much fresh water occurred. A slight increase in production

followed in successive years.

Very high oyster production occurred between 1927 and 1936

following what Gunter (1956) described as the ''greatest flood of all on

the Mississippi River." The situation during this period was more natural

and no apparent oyster mortalities took place. Little or no production

is shown during, and immediately following, World War Il. This is most

likely not a true picture and can be attributed to little or no effort being

put into the collection of production figures. The same situation existed

between 1951 and 1959 with little effort being made to collect proper prod uction

figures. I am certain that the productive reefs in Biloxi Bay and at the

mouth of the Pascagoula River alone could have put oyster production

over the 100, 000 barrel mark during this period. Granted, that period

between the years 1939 and 1959 approximately 3, 000 acres of prime

oyster bottom were lost in the Pass Christian area as a result of

increased salinities.

-50-

During the period 1960 through 1968 oyster production was maintained

at over 100, 000 barrels. This was due to two factors: Heavy rainfall and

an annual shell planting program that was instituted by the Mississippi

Marine Conservation Commission.

The sudden decline in oyster production during the 1970 season was

due mainly to the destruction of oyster shops and canneries by Hurricane

Camille rather than actual destruction of the reefs. However, the oyster

industry bounced back very quickly and during the 1971-1972 season 39,469

barrels of oysters were harvested.

The closure of the very productive reef at the mouth of the Pasca-

goula River at the height of the oyster season is another example of

man's on-shore activities. In February of 1961 this reef was closed

as a result of a bypass of raw sewage from the treat ment plant at

Pascagoula. The closure of this reef reflects a loss of approximately

80, 000 barrels in the 1962 production. This area is still closed. Another

example is the closure of Biloxi Bay oyster reefs in 1967.

The loss of 500 acres of what is considered to be the most pro-

ductive reef in the State on the south side of Biloxi Bay and another 100

highly productive acres on the Ocean Springs side was truly tragic. The

loss is likewise reflected in succeeding years.

The closure of the Biloxi Bay reefs was the result of finding excessive

coliform bacteria which are used as indicators of human waste pollution.

11 feel tliat tlic Biloxi Bay reefs cotd(l stipport ffic cntiru r;tw oyster

induf4try on a twelve inojitli basis.

-51-

To give an example of the importance of Mississippi's fishing

industry, a survey by Charles H. Lyles revealed that the Mississippi

marine catch of fish and shellfish in 1971 amounted to 397 million pounds

valued at $12 million. This is a record catch in both volume and value

surpassing the 1961 record of 392 million pounds worth $8 million. Ac-

cording to Lyles, commercial fisheries of Mississippi normally provide

for about 4500 jobs, 2900 fishermen and 1600 shore workers. Fishery

processing in Mississippi produce products worth more than $33 million.

This data is even more impressive when one considers that Mississippi

has the shortest coastline of any of the Gulf states.

It has been estimated that eighty percent of Mississippi's marine

fishery resources spend at least some part of their life inshore in the

estuarine environment, in the shallows, or in flooded tidal marshes.

Including the Bay and Sound indentions of the mainland shore, but not

counting the islands, Mississippi has 155 miles of general tidal shore-

line compared with Alabama's 199 miles, Louisiana's 985 miles, Texas'

1, 100 miles, and 1, 658 miles on the west coast of Florida. These figures

are from the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey.

The Mississippi Marine Conservation Commission is charged with

the promulgation and enforcement of regulations governing the coastal

fisheries of the State. Similar responsibility for game and fish, including

freshwater commercial fisheries, is charged to the Mississippi Game

_52-

and Fish Commission. There has been some controversy in regard to

areas of responsibility. In general, the legal provisions for management

of fisheries resources are very good. Harvesting is based on the best

available biological information, tempered to some extent by current

economic conditions and demands. Political considerations appear to be

minimal. Some authority has been delegated to local county and city

governments. These, at times, cause some confusion.

The Mississippi State Health Department administers the closing of

polluted areas to shellfishing in accordance with standards set by the U. S.

Food and Drug Administration. The Mississippi Marine Conservation

Commission is responsible for enforcement.

Until recently there was no legislation providing for conservation of

the estuarine environment. Ownership of shoreline property entails

riparian rights encompassing an area 750 yards from the shoreline.

Riparian rights do not extend across channels. Most of the marshes are

privately owned, but various local and State agencies hold title to some

areas. However, water bottoms belong to the State.

Numerous local and State agencies and planning commissions have

the responsibility and authority for the industrial development of the coastal

area. In the past, development has proceeded with little or no consideration

for the conservation of the estuarine environment. Efforts have been directed,

almost totally, toward the development of waterfront industrial sites, the

expansion of established industries, the attraction of new industry, and further

-4 -53-

concentration of the human population here on the Coast. It does not seem

fair that industries as important as tourism and fishing, which have been

established here for many years, should be pushed aside and degraded by

heavy industry.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reviews all requests for engineer-

ing operations or modification of the estuaries. The Mississippi Marine

Conservation Commission may protest engineering operations considered

detrimental to continued production of renewable resources. The Corps

has been cooperative within the limits of its authority, but State Law did

not provide for any further action until enactment of HB140, the Wetlands

Protection Act of 1973.

The complexities of the legal structure involving management and

development of Mississippi's coastal areas were defined and clarified by

HB140, and this legislation provided for the conservation and management

of the estuarine environment. This legislation was directed toward the

realization, of optimum utilization of renewable resources. It is felt by

some, including myself, that the Wetlands Protection Act is not totally ade-

quate since some of the largest would-be offenders are excluded under the

present Act.

In 1966 the Mississippi Marine Conservation Commission was designated

as the agency to administer Public Law 88-309, The Commercial Fisheries

Research and Development Act of 1964. The Commission recognized the

fact that there was little or no protection of the estuarine environment of the

State.

-54-

One of the first actions undertaken by the Commission was a project

with the four other Gulf States and the National Marine Fisheries Service

to produce a film to better educate the public, and politicians in particular,

of the need to preserve our estuarine environment. The project was com-

pleted in June of 1967 and the result was a twenty-eight minute film entitled

"Estuarine Heritage. " This film was widely distributed, and is still being

distributed. It is available from the Commission upon request, and is free

of charge. A reduced fourteen minute version won a film festival award

and was shown for two years by United Artists Studios around the country.

Another Commission sponsored project under PL 88-309 was a project

entitled "Gulf of Mexico Estuarine Inventory. 11 This study was conducted at

the Gulf Coast Research Laboratory in Ocean Springs, with J. Y. Christmas

as project leader. The study was an evaluation and assessment of the marine

fishery resources of the State, with particular attention to the assessment of

the marshes and wetlands in the three coastal counties. Representative Gerald

Blessey used portions of this study to draft his Wetlands Act. You can see that

the Mississippi Marine Conservation Commission has had protection of the

wetlands and the marine environment in mind for some time.

If we are to maintain our present standard of living in this country, oil

must be drilled off our coasts, channels must be dredged and maintained to

our ports, and work in general in the marine and estuarine environment must

be done. However, with the present technology that is available, tasks can be

performed without undue stress and damage to the environment. The key is

-55-

planning and coordination by agencies charged with the various and sundry

activities in the coastal zone.

-56-

MINERAL EXTRACTION AND FOSSIL FUELS

Terry Owen
Petroleum Engineer, Mississippi State Oil and Gas Board

It is a pleasure to be here. For those of you who are not aware of

the purpose of the Mississippi State Oil and Gas Board, it was created

by the State Legislature in 1948 to regulate drilling, production and

transportation of oil and gas in the State of Mississippi. In addition to

being a regulatory agency, the Oil and Gas Board has other responsi-

bilities to foster, encourage, promote and develop the utilization of oil

and gas resources through progressive drilling for the maximum eco-

nomic benefit to the people of the State of Mississippi. At the same

time, the Board protects public and private interests by prohibiting

waste of these resources and protects the environment. Coastal zone

management is going to be quite necessary if the waters of the State of

Mississippi are leased for drilling.

In discussing mineral extraction, I would like to cover three basic

points. These are the economic impact, the environmental impact, and

the potential of mineral extraction in the Mississippi Sound.

A fuel supply in the Mississippi Sound could create a situation

where industry would be wanting to come to the Gulf Coast. This would

involve siting petrochemical plants and refineries, which would require

land development and would create new jobs. Since the waters belong to

-57-

State, the severance tax would not be the only income from offshore oil

and gas production to the State. We would also receive the lease bonus

money and the royalty payments. Currently the severance tax alone for

oil and gas production in the State amounts to 1. 7 million dollars a month,

which is a tremendous economic gain to the State of Mississippi.

Offshore drilling and production and pipeline operations in the

Mississippi Sound would not really require a vast amount of sophisticated

equipment. Exploratory wells in shallow waters, such as the Mississippi

Sound, would require small rigs compared to the larger rigs needed for

the Outer Continental Shelf. Production platforms would, more than

likely, be small, single well platforms no more than twenty feet square.

They would, of course, be properly marked and lighted for navigational

purposes. Pipelines would not interfere with trawling operations and

underwater obstructions would certainly not be allowed. Any potential

location which might interfere with a public or private interest would

probably be moved by the leasing company prior to the issuance of a

permit to drill. In short, we see very few unusual problems which

might develop from offshore drilling in Mississippi waters.

We have all heard a great deal about environmental impact. The

main thing I can add is that the oil industry has spent millions and

millions of dollars in the research and development of spill prevention

equipment and clean-up equipment. In the last two years a group of over

thirty-five oil company offshore operators, primarily in Louisiana and

-58-

TexasV have spent almost two million dollars in equipment alone. This

equipment is stationed at various points in the Gulf of Mexico. The

equipment is manned continually and costs over fifty thousand dollars

each month just for stand-by purposes. If the offshore waters of the

State of Mississippi are leased, this equipment will certainly be avai-

lable to the area and will be sent to any spill as quickly as possible.

In addition to this clean-up equipment and the technology that

has developed in the last few years, the United States Environmental

Protection Agency and the State Oil and Gas Board have developed more

stringent rules and regulations concerning offshore drilling, production

and pipeline operations. I believe that at this particular moment, the

oil industry is as advanced as it can possibly be. There will, undoubtedly,

be continued improvements on their part in equipment and techniques

to prevent any pollution to the waters.

Ak We believe that the State Oil and Gas Board is prepared to proceed

with any offshore, activity concerning mineral extraction. This brings

us to my final point- -potential. We have approximately a half million

acres which has been divided into ninety-eight proposed leasing blocks

by the Mineral Lease Commission. Looking at the entire Gulf of

Mexico, this half million acres is just a very small portion. We are

now completely surrounded by blocks which have been leased in other

states' waters. Louisiana, which is really due south of us, has been

_59-

drilling and producing offshore oil and gas for years. Certainly the

offshore potential in Mississippi is not as great as that of Louisiana.

The prolific fields in offshore Louisiana and Texas are caused pri-

marily by salt movement from large, deep-seated salt domes. To our

knowledge, we do not have this many salt deposits in the Mississippi

waters. However, we do have coral reef deposits. These coral reef

deposits will be in lower cretaceous sediments between ten and fifteen

thousand feet. These could be drilled and developed quite easily.

Tremendously steep dips in the beds caused b: faulting and salt
y

movement are prevalent at the southernmost tip of Mississippi waters

around the barrier islands. Some federal leases have been developed

in this area. Drilling there may prove that Mississippi waters offer

a better potential of oil and gas production than may now be expected.

_60-

RECREATION AND TOURISM

Edward J. Keels
Chairman of Board, Gulf Coast Inkeepers Association

I would like to welcome all of you tourists to the Gulf Coast. It

will make you happy to know you are now a part of our permanent

record of statistical and economic forecasting which will come from

the Gulf Coast.

I spoke at a Water Quality Workshop recently and read a "Dear

Abby" letter. Possibly some of you were at that workshop, but I

believe this letter bears repeating. The letter was from a young

gentleman who wrote, "Dear Abby, I'm a young fellow who just recently

met a very pretty girl at the Drug Rehabilitation Center. We were both

released at the same time and I've had a hard life. My mother ran

away with an aluminum siding salesman when I was eight years old.

My father died in a mental institution. I have an older brother in the

hotel business. My younger sister was just busted for drugs and pros-

titution. My other brother is serving five to ten years for armed

robbery. Now my problem is, Abby, I would like to marry this girl,

but should I tell her about my brother in the hotel business?

I believe the hotel business on the Coast ~24qh~qaa been cast as ~8qth~2qIs

t~2qyp@ of ~4q1~4q3~0qo~4qr~q-~4qg~0qa~00qn. T~28qh~qt word ~qf4~qc~qu~q.~q-~qI~q'~qs~6qt~q" ~4q1~q1~q1~q1~q1~q1~q1~q0~20qk~qe~qs ~8qF~0qt~q-~qa-~qA~qX~q-~q9~q9 ~0qQ~0ql~0qA~qi~4ql I ~0qJ~0qJ~0qr~qJ~4ql~8q1~4qC~00qV~4qC

Webster's ~2qa~qv~2qi~4ql~8qn~8qi~2qt~4ql~qo~2qa of the, word "tourist" is someone wh~q6 l~qt~qqv~q6~qa home

to travel for pleasure or culture. Obviously, you people are not here

-61-

for pleasure or culture, but are here to confront a serious problem.

The word "pollution" invokes a mental image of something that is

very distasteful, something with which one would not want to be associated.

Pollution has more ramifications to us in the hotel business than just

this distasteful thing about which we are talking. The pollution problem

certainly could be detrimental to the tourist industry. Who wants to

come to a coast where the waters are so badly polluted that it may be

harmful to swim there?

We know we have problems here on the coast. Recently, this

hotel lost a convention from Chattanooga. They read in the paper that

tests taken on the Gulf Coast at the Sheraton Hotel indicated the area was

not, fit for swimming. The Broadwater Hotel, likewise, received a call

from a group in Nebraska. They had seen a television news coverage

concerning the pollution on the Gulf Coast. They did not cancel only

because they were too far committed. After their convention they met

with local people and told how beautiful they felt our coast was, and what

an injustice the television had done in their portrayal of the area.

Those of us in the tourist business are quite interested in improving

our coast. We will do our best to help find some solutions to our

problems.

-6Z-

TRANSPORTATION AND NAVIGATION

W. Larry Harris, Ports and Harbors Development Coordinator
Mississippi Agricultural and Industrial Board

In an effort to make a contribution toward long range planning and

potential problems in the area of navigation and transportation, I would

like to limit this presentation to brief summaries on the present status

on rail freight, motor freight, and port activity, and the problems we

will be dealing with in the future.

In laying a foundation to present these problems, let us talk for a

moment about future industrial expansion because increased activity in

this area will give rise to increased activity in transportation and naviga-

tion which will be the force that will create our problems in the future.

It is very obvious that the qulf Coast area is a prime location for

future industrial expansion. Up to now Mississippi has been hungry for

new industries in order to solve unemployment and underemployment

problems, but now we feel that we can be more selective in the type of

industries that we seek. In seeking these industries, we must prepare and

equip the Gulf Coast area for this industrial development in the fields of

transportation and navigation.

Transportation facilities consume about 24% of the total fuel resources

expended each year in the United States. Of this, ground transportation

consumes about 45% of all oil-produced energy. These facts concerning the

enormous amount of energy consumed by ground transportation points to the

-63-

problem of availability of fuel and the ability to purchase fuel if available,

not to mention the need to implement future plans for modern transportation

arteries. These arteries need to be planned to have east, west, and north

orientations, to have easy access to cross-country routes and especially to

the port and industrial areas without having to deal with the time-consuming

problem of traffic congostion. In order to plan for ideal motor freight

transportation, there is a need to have accessible arteries that permit a free

flow of traffic and have an adequate supply of fuel at a competitive cost with

other parts of the United States.

To give you an idea of the truck traffic at the Port of Gulfport, the Port

handled 25, 000 trucks in 1973 with access to the Port being adequate at this

time, Also, there is a need to provide adequate truck marshalling areas in

all future Port plans to prevent congestion once the motor freight reaches the

port. The same stands true for rail traffic with the exception of fuel availability

but with the addition of the problem of the lack of rail cars available.

Railroads are efficient users of energy and manpower for long-distance

line haul transportation and for short-haul transport for bulk commodities in

unit trains. In short movements involving frequent switching and sorting of

rail cars, railroads are at a severe disadvantage. There is a trend toward

road vehicles taking over local distriWtion and collection for rail movement

in both rural and urban areas. Which points out the need to prepare for

additional, efficient local traffic arteries to cope with this ever-increasing

problem of local or domestic traffic along with the bef ore -mentioned cross-

country traffic.

-64-

This line of thought is geared toward servicing local industries with

needed commodities, but there is also the problem of moving commodities

that have a destination other than points in the Gulf Coast area--notably

points up-state. This is the case where the railroad would have quick access

to the ports which is not the case at the present time. There is an ever

increasing trend toward more and more rail cars to frequent our ports: A

classic example of this is the Port of Pascagoula handled over 28,000 rail

cars in 1973 compared with only 1900 the previous year.

The major importance of the ports in the future will be their contribution

to the region's transport versatility and capability for supporting industrial

development, but the ability to perform this function will be jeopardized with-

out long-range planning that contain's clear, comprehensive goals for the future.

Both our deep water ports in Mississippi have made great strides toward

supporting industrial development in recent years, but the ability to keep up this

trend is questionable. The Port of Pascagoula and Bayou Casotte handled approx-

imately 14 million tons of cargo in 1973. In 1963, it handled only 2. 3 million

tons, an increase of about 600% in 10 years. By the same note, the Port of

Gulfport handled about 1. 1 million in 1973 compared with only 330 thousand in

1963, an increase of some 300% despite the fact the port was almost completely

destroyed by Hurricane Camille. Also, let me add that as a result of recent

negotiations with various industries, the tonnage figure at the Port of Gulfport

should go over the 2 million ton mark in the next 5 years.

Having shown a brief picture of where our ports are presently, let us talk

-65-

a minute about where they will be in ten to twenty years. There is a dire

need to prepare our ports with deep water channels. The trend in the ship-

building industry today is toward building larger ships with deeper drafts.

Our present channels cannot handle these deep draft vessels because of

present channel depth which is thirty-eight feet at Pascagoula and thirty

feet at Gulfport. In April of this year, we had our final public hearing on

deepening the channel into Gulfport to 40 feet which had a very encouraging

reception. Progress is being made toward conducting hearings to study and

hopefully deepen the channel at Pascagoula and Bayou Casotte up to 50 feet.

Today's trend in shipping is geared toward carrying larger volumes

of cargo. This is evidenced by containerization, barge-carrying ships, and

super tankers, all of which do not have access to our ports with our present

channel depths. The Port of Pascagoula and Bayou Casotte area, possessing

a very bright future in the area of petroleum and chemicals, must prepare

themselves to handle these deep draft tankers, such as 80, 000 ton vessels,

in order to be attractive to potential oil refining prospects, Also, possessing

channel depths to handle say an 80, 000 ton tanker may not be a complete answer

in attracting oil refineries. This is evident by the fact that major oil companies

around the world presently have 360 tankers on order in the 150, 000 ton class

or larger, none of which would have direct access to the Bayou Casotte area.

Thus, we are looking at the superport concept or some method of trans-shipping

onto smaller tankers in order to come into the harbor at Bayou Casotte if, in

fact, we had to rely on this type of vessel in order to import oil. The same is

-66-

true for Gulfport. We must prepare ourselves to be competitive with our

neighboring ports in the Gulf by laying a foundation now to handle these

container ships and larger general cargo ships. No question, large amounts

of money would have to be expended on equipment, but without these long-range

plans, there will be a diversion of our traffic to ports that do cater to this type

of transportation.

The question will always come up that our ports lack available land to

expand and handle this type trade and it all points to how well do truck and rail

have access to our ports as previously mentioned. Through a combined com-

prehensive planning effort, ideal land transportation systems could be built

into our port areas thus changing their image from that of a storage area to one

of a transit area, or to have the ability to move cargo off the port property

immediately rather than store it for any length of time. This transit area image

could easily be projected on our ports if they can be easily accessible by rail

and truck.

In obtaining these deeper channels, the problem is not necessarily one of

showing a favorable benefit to cost ratio in order for the Corps of Engineers to

proceed, The problem, which is a problem no one seems to have an answer for,

is one of what to do with the dredge spoil once it is displaced from the channel.

This problem arises every time someone mentions a dredging project. Some

areas in Florida pump it onto their beaches, but unfortunately most of the dredge

spoil in the Mississippi Sound is unsuitable for this. It is too expensive to pump

-0 the suitable material on our beaches because it is located so far off the beach.

J -67-

The marsh island concept has been mentioned. That is, consolidating

all dredge and maintenance material in one location thus constructing an

island. This has been criticized because of the fear that it would have an

adverse affect on the natural water circulation in the Sound or that it would

eventually erode away thus serving no purpose at all. However, this idea

seems to be the best solution anyone has come up with at this time. It has

not been proven as an effective remedy to spoil disposal problems but may

very well turn out to be.

At the present time, the Vicksburg District of the United States Army

Corps of Engineers is studying spoil disposal problems and has expressed an

interest in using the Gulfport Channel dredging project as a model in which to

study. I personally think it is a step in the right direction in taking advantage

of the opportunity to study the spoil island concept.

In summary, I have mentioned the importance of rail freight and motor

freight accessibility into our ports and industrial areas along with the potential

problems of fuel deficiency. I have mentioned providing our ports with deep

water channels and the importance of keeping our ports competitive with neigh-

boring ports in terms of equipping them in order for them to keep up with the

changing trends in moving cargo by water. There are many other concepts that

have not been mentioned which carry the same degree of importance, such as

increased barge traffic which we will surely have to deal with, the importance

of having American flag vessels calling on our ports, developing our ports so

that they will be a regular port-of -call for selected shipping lines and the need

to place some sort of definition on our desires to locate refineries,

petrochernicals plants and other related industries in the Bayou Casotte

area. This area can become one of the largest petrochemical complexes

in the United States if this is the desire of the majority. If so, let us unite

and initiate a consolidated effort toward obtaining a superport permit or

license. The Jackson County area is a natural for this type of heavy in-

dustry, but we need to fully determine if this is the type business to solicit.

In conclusion, no one can foresee the solutions to these problems,

but I honestly feel that a good place to start planning and looking for these

answers is through a total consolidated effort which would include systematic

planning in the areas of land use, water quality, legislation, and policing

environmental standard on the part of all local and county governments, on

up to the State, and ultimately to our United States Senators and Congressmen.

In the past, there have been signs of competition between local governments,

between counties, between environmentalists, ecologists, and industrialists.

In the future, if we can discard our differences and intrastate competitiveness,

we can surely go forward with our much needed industrial developments,

suffering minimal cost and making very few sacrifices in doing so.

-69-

COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

James W. Miller, Manager of Industrial Development
Mississippi Agricultural and Industrial Board

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is a pleasure to be here today to discuss

with you and other members of the panel, the future development of com-

merce and industry on the Mississippi Gulf Coast and the relationship of

that development to coastal zone management.

At the outset, I want to emphasize that we can have continued industrial

growth on the Gulf Coast without inflicting damage to our recreational and

seafood industries. With sound planning and reasonable safeguards we can

see the parallel growth and prosperity of all of these industries.

Balancing industrial needs with water quality needs is a complex problem.

I cannot stand here today and make broad generalizations because the water

quality problems of new or expanding industrial locations are problems that

have to be solved on a case by case basis. Before any new location or expansion

can be approved, we have to match estimated discharges with the estimated

capacity of the body of water to safely absorb those discharges without ecological

damage. This, of course, is a responsibility of the Air and Water Pollution

Control Commission and I do not intend to get into a deep discussion regarding

pollution laws. It is a complex and tightly regulated process. For most

industries there is no significant water pollution problem. But industries such

as oil refineries, organic chemical plants, and pulp and paper plants must be

located near 1.)odie" of water capable of ab8orbing the-fie dimcilargen along with

whatever other discharges are presently being emitted. For example, a

-71-

substantial pulp and paper plant cannot be located on a small stream, but

this same plant might be located on the Pearl River without causing any

significant damage.

At the present time, I do not know of a single new industrial location

we have lost because of water quality problems. We have lost a couple to

Alabama but primarily because Mississippi did not have suitable land adjacent

to deep water. There are three reasons for this:

First of all, the 197Z amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control

Act assure that the ecological impact of most new industrial locations will be

nominal. When we talk of water quality problems in locating new industry, we

are talking about only a small portion of new industry. The Water Pollution

Control Act Amendments establish as a goal the elimination of all pollutant

discharges by 1985 through a series of steps which progressively tightened

regulations. I do not know whether this goal can be achieved, but, no doubt,

achievement of harmonious growth among the various areas of the Coast

economy will be made easier by the provisions of this Act.

The second reason we are not losing industry on the basis of pollution

problems is that the Water Pollution Control Act applies equally to every state.

Industry knows that if they look outside our state they are likely to confront the

same problems.

Finally, Mississippi's abundant water supply carries a larger than

average absorbing capacity. The amount of discharges our waterways can accept

without serious damage, is substantially greater than the average state this size.

-7Z-

As you can see industrial discharges are tightly regulated and cannot

legally be allowed to increase to the point where the recreation or fisheries

industry is threatened. The current problems in the Mississippi Sound are

not the result of industrial pollutants, but largely a problem of municipal

waste treatment.

As we look at the future of industrial development on the Coast, the

problem is not so much whether industrial development will interferewith other

uses of our waterways as whether the absorbing capacity of coastal waterways

will be sufficient to allow continued industrial growth.

While we can fully expect to continue to attract and locate new industry

on the Coast, the future is not without problems. As I have said, these are

complex problems that must be resolved on a case by case basis, weighing all

of the relevant information. Therefore, it is diffifult to make generalizations

about the future. But we can, however, be assured that the Mississippi Gulf

Coast can continue substantial industrial growth without hurting our seafood or

recreation industries.

We are committed on the state level to an accelerated industrial develop-

ment program, both in-state and out-of-state. We are concentrating more effort

in-state now than ever before in an attempt to identify problem areas in local

communities, for example, the need for industrial parks. We are also working

with existing industries to determine if our state agency can assist in solving

problems that might exist.

Ak
The best advertising Mississippi can have is the testimony of business

people who have found a favorable location in Mississippi, and that is as

it should be. Almost thirty-seven percent of the more than 118, 000 new

industrial jobs created in our state during the last decade have come as

the result of expansion of Mississippi industries.

The area which should receive the%most emphasis to insure. the. accelerated

economic advancement of our state in 1974 is the creation of better jobs for

Mississippians. The main objective for a number of years has been the creation

of jobs, and it remains so. However, we recognize that total new industries,

or total new industrial jobs created, is not the entire story and should not be

the sole objective of our efforts. We are as interested in the type of industry

which we secure and the type and quality of the jobs created as we are in the

total numbers.

We seek jobs, diversification, and industries with the vision to grasp

the significance of new developments in their fields. More and better jobs for

our people is the key to the development of our human resources. This means

jobs in industry, commerce and business, and in the processing of the products

of our farms and forests. For years, the leaders of Mississippi have recognized

the necessity of providing Mississippi's young people with the means of making a

living in keeping with their abilities and educational attainments. We have been

in the past and continue to be concerned about the problem of our young people

leaving the State of Mississippi. We cannot isolate this problem. It is a part

of a complete picture involving all of the elements of economic development, a

picture which must be viewed as a whole.

-74-

It is obvious, of course, that increased manufacturing and processing

industries in Mississippi is a principal way of securing more and better

paying jobs and of providing opportunities. In addition, we have the task of

providing more opportunity in the wholesale and retail fields and in the pro-

fessions and service trades, all of which are growing faster on a national basis.

We can neither forget the work to be done in agriculture where we must

continue to seek more and better markets for the products of our farms and

forest and, consequently, more opportunities for the youth to earn a satisfactory

and meaningful living at home.

There are many areas which must be given emphasis if we are to insure

continued economic advancement through the coming decade. Industry must

consider a combination of factors in the selection of a plant location; or for that

matter, when it decides whether to expand its operations in a particular location

or to open up a new plant somewhere else.

In general, however, I no not think that there is any doubt that the most

important factor in plant location is attitude- -how the community and the state

feel about industry and various elements which go together to make a business

climate in which industry can prosper. This is not to say that manpower,

markets, and materials are not important. Indeed they are, but the relative

importance of anyone of these can vary from one instance to another. Attitude,

however, what kind of welcome the community and state gives the businessman,

is an ingredient which must be present in every case.

-75-

In Mississippi we are committed to a policy of balancing the need for

industrial growth with the need to protect our environment. Because so

much of our industrial development is occuring under the new environmental

regulations, and because we have been able to disperse much of our industry

throughout the State, Mississippi is in the truly enviable position of being

able to achieve both environmental and economic goals. As we look toward

the future on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, I believe that if we can solve our

immediate water quality problems, then we will be in a good position to achieve

these same goals in the Gulf Coast area, as well.

-76-

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

D. L. Anderson
Manager, Gulf Coast District
Mississippi Research and Development Center

Recently, we have come to recognize the existence of what we

call the coastal zone. We might define this large area as the inter-

face between the land and water. The question arises, why bother with

even naming and defining the coastal zone? Well, that answer might be

obvious to some people, yet it may well elude others. Bill Demoran, who

practices marine science, tells us that a vast portion of these things we

call seafood creatures spend a great deal of their life in developing in

and getting nutrients from the wetlands areas. It may be worth saving

for that idea alone. However, better reasons come to mind. Coastal

land in America today commands a premium price from the developer.

We know that never before in our history have we witnessed such

an outmigration from the interior cities to the shorelines of America.

The fastest growing areas in our nation are the ocean oriented and Gulf

Coast communities. We had 240, 000 people on our own Gulf Coast in

1970. We find 273, 000 people in 1974, an increase of fourteen percent.

These residents live in 85, 000 dwelling units. Based on current rates

of population growth we might expect to have 322, 000 people in 1980 and

440, 000 people in 1990. That is probably conservative so I would defi-

nitely allow for 500, 000.

-77-

Residents have to have a place to call home. Generally, we are

looking for a home today or we have a home. If we have a home, we

have a good investment. If you are looking for a home, you will find

it on a market which is quite difficult to penetrate. During the period

between 1970 and 1972 we had homes on the coast representing $117 million.

In 1973 we built homes costing $57 million. This year we are projecting

a $32 million investment in new homes. The greatest year in home

building was 1972, and we have seen a continual decline since that year.

This year is proving to be the worst yet.

How does all this dollar demand really affect us down here? It

affects us in terms of supply for land. In economic terms land is

thoroughly inelastic in supply. That means when and if we use it up, we

cannot create more. More homes mean more streets, more easements,

more water and sewage systems, more garbage, more automobiles,

more traffic, and the list is almost endless.

I believe the condition of our water may be attributed to unwise

management in waste disposal. The problem now is not to discontinue

residential development but to start to balance the needs and the results

that come as a consequence in satisfying these needs. The greatest need

for coastal zone land comes from the private sector. These people can

take land and do something with it for a profit. There is certainly

nothing wrong with that, but I suggest that we attempt to strike a balance

-78-

between developing our land for the private sector and keeping some of

it for what I call the social needs--parks, playgrounds, and that sort

of thing.

With regard to future residential development I believe we have to

be assured that those we entrust are making wise decisions. These

people make decisions that will affect us now and in the future. Decisions

regarding the land must be made in light of the fact of the impact on the

water. Coastal zone management, I think, is a two-way street. While

the traffic must be regulated, it should be allowed to move so that bottle-

necks or traffic jams, whatever they might be, do not occur. We have

to keep the economy moving. I think two facts act in concert to restrict

residential development in close proximity to the water. These are the

increasing costs of fire and extended coverage insurance, and the ever-

present danger of flooding from a storm.

Flood insurance which is now available at subsidized rates will

cost homeowners substantially more after December 31, 1974. They will

then be required to pay commercial or actual area rates for flood insurance.

For someone located in the flood hazard zone, this could be quite costly.

In these times of high mortgage money, additional insurance costs

may be a factor in helping a future homeowner make two decisions:

(1) Will I build? and (2) Where will I build? While it is safe to say that

residential development will continue, three factors tend to cast a

shadow over continued high investment in hew housing--an extremely

-79-

tight money market which will kikely continue for quite sometime, a

reluctance on the part of the Government to again become heavily

involved in the public housing sector, and increased land development

and construction costs. Land today is about sixty percent more expensive

that it was in 1970. Construction costs, including materials, have in-

creased an average of fifteen percent per year. A home costing $34, 000

in 1970 would probably cost $46, 000 today.

Our real income balance, or the ratio we would get if we put total

money supply over a figure we call total wage increases, has been

deteriorating steadily since 1969. We are not only getting less for our

dollar, but we are getting less dollars to spend.

-80-

WASTE DISPOSAL

Bob Monette
Regional Engineer
Mississippi Air and Water Pollution Control Commission

1 believe when you talk about Mississippi's Coastal Zone Manage-

ment one of the main things to consider would be exactly what is going

to be put into the coastal waters and the estuarine waters that are not

near the Sound. I would like to briefly go over with you the problems

that we face. First of all, when talking about volumes and quantities,

I will be referring to treated waste water. Of the three coastal counties,

the main concentration of industry is in the Bayou Cassotte region near

Pascagoula in Jackson County. The only other areas that are growing

industrially are North Gulfport and Biloxi, the Back Bay area, the

Industrial Seaway, and the area behind Pass Christian where the Dupont

plant will be located. Just on the eleven major industries in the coastal

area I have calculated the volume of waste water discharged to be 767

million gallons a day. That is quite a quantity of waste water. Again,

this is treated waste water. The quantity of suspended solids reaches

the 300, 000 pounds per day level. As you can see, we are talking about

a vast quantity of waste water being discharged daily into the Sound area.

Next we should view domestic wastes which have been the topic for

a great deal of discussion in the last few months. Not only the munici-

palities but the entire coast has grown so fast that we have subdivisions

-81-

developing all over the three coastal counties. For this reason, the

cities just have not had the finances,- the time, or the planning necessary

to accomodate all of these people with interceptive sewers and water

systems. There are about 150 package sewage treatment plants in

the coastal counties ranging from 5, 000 per day to 300, 000 gallons

per day. The domestic waste total discharge is around sixteen million

gallons a day of treated domestic waste.

Our programs in the State of Mississippi consist of contacting all

industries by making monthly industrial inspections. We make these

monthly inspections, primarily, just to check in with the people and

let them know we are available if they should need any help. We are not

simply a regulatory agency but are here to consult with them on any

problems which might arise.

Of course, we are constantly monitoring all sewage treatment

plants in the state, particularly on the coast. Lately, the cities have

taken a greater interest in keeping the water clean and are doing all

they can to make sure that they operate all sewage treatment plants as

best they can. I feel we have had very good cooperation from the cities

on the coast in training their personnel to operate these treatment

facilities.

The Pollution Control Commission is also involved in a water

sampling program. This was begun last October and was extended until

-82-

the first of March when we slacked off a bit. In compiling our sampling

program we have tried to take all relative items into consideration such

as temperature, tidal fluctuations, rainfall, and all other entities which

might have an effect on the pollution level in the Mississippi Sound,

In the last two weeks we have begun another intensive sampling program.

We are sampling about twenty-five locations at least twice per day.

Many samples over an extended period of time must be collected before

any conclusive findings are available. The Environmental Protection

Agency will be down here in the next four to six weeks working with us,

training us, so that we can set up twenty-four hour composite sampling

machines to monitor industrial discharges.

As far as emergency situations are concerned, the Mississippi

Air and Water Pollution Control Commission is on call twenty-four hours

a day to check fish kills, oil spills, or anything which may occur. In

fact, there is a number in Jackson where we can always be reached.

Also, we can call on the U.S. Coast Guard and the Mississippi Boat

and Water Safety Commission to locate problems within the different

areas. There are three regional offices of the Pollution Control Commis-

sion serving twenty-two counties. These regional offices were opened to

help shorten the time lag when an emergency arises, This time lag

makes it very difficult for us as an agency to reach a locationp pin

down exactly what has happened, and who is responsible for it,

-83-

DINNER INTRODUCTION

Donald J. Cuevas
Vice Chairman, Mississippi Marine Resources Council

As Vice Chairman of the Mississippi Marine Resources Council I

would like to welcome you to this facet of the Governor's Conference on

Coastal Zone Management.

Our speaker this evening, a Democrat, was elected Governor of

Mississippi in 1971. Our Governor comes from the small farming com-

munity of Burgess near Oxford in Lafayette County. After working his

way through Memphis State University, he earned a law degree from Ole

Miss Law School.

Prior to entering state-wide politics he became known in the State

as one of Mississippi's distinguished district attorneys. First elected in

1959 he was reelected without opposition. His straightforward prosecution

in the Medgar Evers case attracted national headlines in the early sixties.

In 1967 he was an unsuccessful candidate for Governor. Even then., as a

relative unknown, his approach and proposals for the scene of the day drew

a great deal of favorable attention.

During both gubernatorial campaigns he placed his efforts, and has

been somewhat successful, in bringing government back to the people. Part

of his return of the government to the people has resulted in getting decision-

making inputs through his program of moving the Capitol to all parts of the

state. I think this has opened a voice to many people who have not been heard

before.

-85-

Mississippi, as someone has called the "Flower of the Old South",

is changing. We are blossoming into a dynamic New South under Waller's

leadership. His election has been viewed as a mandate for change, and

change it is. His programs are bringing about a social-P political and
0
economic boom in Mississippi in industry, national and international

marketing, capital investments for the state, and an increase in agricul-

tural products. 0

Our speaker addresses all problems of our state with vigor and a

positive attitude. His administration has seen education move forward.

We have a new dental school, school of veterinary science, and other

educational accomplishments. Contrary to some things we read, today,

education is moving forward in the State of Mississippi.
0
Other problem solutions resulted in the largest public works program

in our history --a $600 million highway program under his leadership. A

consumer protection agency has been established. His administration has 0

provided the groundwork for improved penal and correctional institutions.

The Governor thinks big for Mississippi and relates that the best thing

about his administration is the spirit of unity, cooperation, and optimisim

among the people of Mississippi. Because he practices this strong belief,

we have cause to be here at this meeting.

This morning I remarked during my presentation that the first order

of business of this Council in 1969 was to appoint a committee to conduct a

Governor's Conference on Coastal Zone Management. Five years later we

-86-

are accomplishing that. We are completing one of our first undertakings,

but not without the intervening problems and frustrations associated with

it. We are completing this only because of the leadership of our speaker

tonight.

Through the efforts of Governor Bill Waller the Mississippi Marine

Resources Council was able to attain life, Our Council, we admit, was

a poor risk to carry over into a new administration, not of his making or

containing a single appointment opening until about two weeks, ago. In

other words, we had been two years into our speaker's administration

before he had the right to appoint or to shape the affairs of the Council

with the exception of four legislative appointments that were open to him.

Nevertheless, he accepted this gracefully and faced the problem head-on.

With an unfortunate legislative tag as a do nothing Council and having

been identified primarily as a means to provide money for Sea Grant programs,

with a record devoid of significant accomplishments, with appropriations

threatened, Governor Waller took charge of a Council he had inherited only a

few months earlier.

He spearheaded our appropriations and provided the leadership to get a

full time management staff. He deserves full credit for the existence of the

Mississippi Marine Resources Council. Today we are a viable, permanent

arm of the State of Mississippi.

His baptism into the cause of coastal zone management, the purpose

.10 for which we are bere tonight, and Iiis re-establishing the Mississippi

-87-

Marine Resources Council qualifies him to be our speaker this evening

on Mississippi's coastal zone management problems. Ladies and gentle-

men, it is my pleasure to present the Governor of the State of Mississippi

and the Chairman of the Mississippi Marine Resources Council, the

Honorable William L. Waller.

GOVERNOR'S ADDRESS

The Honorable William L. Waller
Governor, State of Mississippi

The subject of change is so controversial that you seldom ever get

an audience's attention. You read about management. Just the word "manage-

ment" turns everybody off. Who are they going to control, what are they

going to control, or what are they going to keep me from doing now? You

can talk about changing zoning in the most rural county in Mississippi and

immediately make ninety-eight per cent of the citizens mad at you. You can

talk about solving the problems of pollution on the coast and everybody runs

away from the subject and away from the speaker. The only thing I know is

just simply to come together as Mississippians in the spirit of common ex-

change to discuss what our future might be and what it could be with better

planning.

The lot of the citizens of this State is accelerating and improving

faster than it is anywhere in the nation. There is a tremendous amount

-88-

of optimism abroad in this State because we have found our people to be

united for progress.

The local government is getting cooperation, we hope, from the

State. The State is certainly getting cooperation from the local government.

People in every wall-, of life and from every area of the State are saying

that we want our State to grow. We want to work with towns and counties

for progress. We want to get new industry in here. We want to get our

schools in better condition. Right now, just in Harrison County, you can

think of things 'happening. These things are not happening tomorrow and

are not in the planning state, but are going on right now. We are growing

faster than any one of you realize. It is so exciting for me to go the the Office

of the Governor because I know something, something big and good and great

for our State, is going to happen each day. I do not know anything I could

say to you that is more dramatic than this. Our people are optimistic and

happy. They feel this growth rate accelerating in our State. Now, in order

for us to have this deserved quality of life, what do we have to do? We have

to have some management over our environment. This includes correction

of existing deficiencies as fast as possible and it certainly includes a measure

of planning for the years to come. So, frankly, we will not get into the

predicament that we are in now in certain areas of our State.

I want to tell you how much sympathy I have for you coast residents.

Let us just talk about water for a minute whether it is the Pearl River or the

Mississippi Sound or the Biloxi River or the Pascagoula or Escatawpa Rivers

-89-

or whatever. You know all the up-state rivers and streams flow south.

When they get here they have whatever contaminants were deposited all

along the way. So in some measure, the State needs to help the coast

and the wetlands and the Sound with any problems of clean-up.

When we talk to the fishermen I am amazed to know that the Missis-

sippi River, not the Pearl River, killed a tremendous amount of marine

live in the Sound. When they opened the spillways for emergency purposes

a good amount of polluted, muddy water flowed out of the Mississippi River

and into the Mississippi Sound. Now we are reseeding, restocking, and

biologically researching the damage done by the Mississippi River. We had

to tell the President of the United States that we are a disaster area. We

are a dis aster area because of the floods in Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee,

Missouri and in Mississippi. I stand ready, as do most elected officials,

to take some action on this question of today's problem to prevent this from

happening to us again.

But where is the money coming from? Are we going to get it in Jackson

or are we going to get it in Washington? This is one question that I cannot

answer. Three years ago the Federal Government said that special funding

of most projects will be ended and most projects will be funded locally by

revenue sharing. Many of the grants ($400 million) that we had with the

Economic Development Administration were to clean up the coast. EDA is

not funded anymore. The Federal philosophy now is toward local funding

through revenue sharing. We will continue to probe these areas to find out

_90-

from where the money is coming. It is going to require an emergency

state of mind for all of us concerned with the Mississippi Coast to get

together. It will be necessary for Jackson, George, Harrison, Stone,

Hancock and Pearl River and other affected counties to secure the ex-

pertise that we have to have in order to launch a program.

The quality of life cannot be improved for a.-ny county in Mississippi

Ilk simply by good jobs. We can run from the problem. We can leave it to

the courts. We can leave it to the Marine Resources Council. We can

leave it to the Air and Water Pollution Control Commission. We can

leave it to the Environmental Protection Agency in Atlanta or we can just

leave it, but it will not solve itself without some direct input from local

citizens and local officials. These people must be united for the common

purpose of getting the job done. I hope that I will be invited along with any

other State officials to a countywide meeting in any Mississippi county where

the people will deliberately say that they are not citizens of one particular

city, but are county citizens who are united for the common puzpose of

solving the total problem.

Some of the big, national conventions have heard about this pollution

and will go to Miami Beach or the Virgin Islands in 1978. The accumulation

is going to catch up with us and we are going to look back and say, "if we

had acted back during mid '74, we would not have this loss of business here

in 1978. We have a lot of talent and we have a lot of tools, but marshall

them. We have to put our heads together, our hearts together, our forces

-91-

together, to get this problem solved. There is no more provincialism

in pollution. Jackson cannot do as an entity what Hinds County can do and

Pascagoula cannot do as an entity what Jackson County can do. It is for the

quality of life. We could be paying $10 an hour to every man, woman, and

child in Harrison County for the work effort. That is $400 a week or $20, 000

a year capital income and we can still have failed to produce that high quality

of life that we are entitled to have. Why? Our lakes, our streams, our bays,

our Sound, and so forth need a problem solved. While we are developing our

State at a rapid rate, educationally and industrially, we may need a crash

program to catch up on the quality of our environment.

I, personally, will leave you with this thought. I do not believe we

will solve the environmental management problem in those six counties that

I named until we unite. The mayors are doing all they can do. They have to

have support from the citizens or the taxpayers. The supervisors are doing

all they can do. You get the type of government you demand. You get what

you need and you get it after you demand it. It is going to have to be upright.

I challenge the news media tonight to join into a crusade of awareness that we

are going to have to have. That is a collective, 100% effort to get the problem

solved. I shudder to think about how many millions of dollars will be required

for its needs. We talk about a $600 million highway program. We talk about

a $25 million state-wide park improvement program and other costs. The

teachers received $46 million dollars in a package last year and millions and

millions more. It will probably, in my opinion, be the figure I used earlier- -

_92-

$250 million to get it all going in the right direction. At the same time

we must have adequate waste treatment for the expansion and adequate

potable water. Jackson County is out of water. Did you know that? It

is probably within 5% to 10% of its growth potential until it finds a source

for storing and using good clean water.

It is a total concept of our environment that we need to listen to.

We will keep that old spirit--a purpose of neighborliness that we share,

one man with the other man in the state. We will dedicate ourselves to

the fact that we have the best State in the Union. The quality of life might'

be better if we improve what we have, with the people we have in certain

counties and in certain communities. If we can get it all together we can

solve the problem. I can only say that if I'm called, I will be there. If

you need twenty agencies, they will be there. We will work this thing out

together, man to man in unity. I want to challenge the conferees to probe

deeper, think harder, and work harder tomorrow to try to make this the

historic conference it should be. This will be true not because the office

holds the reigns attached to it, but because it is a step in the direction

where Coastal Zone Management cannot end in sixty miles from the Missis-

sippi beach. It cannot end in Mobile Bay. It cannot end on Fort Walton Beach.

It cannot end on the Louisiana Coast. It has to be a coast-wide effort. This

conference could be historic in the nation, and it might very well be that it will

open the door to what we have to have--that is, a unified effort on Coastal Zone

A4 Management.

-93-

SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP SESSIONS

For the workshop sessions, the conferees were asked which area

of particular concern within the coastal zone they were most interested.

The participants were then assigned to one of seven workshops: Fisheries,

Mineral Extraction and Fossil Fuels, Recreation and Tourism, Commerce

and Industrial Development, Residential Development, Transportation

and Navigation, and Waste Disposal.

The Nominal Grouping Technique was used in each of these

workshops. Each group was asked to address the same three questions:

(1) What do you feel are the major needs in Mississippi's Coastal Zone?

(2) What do you see are the major use conflicts in the coastal zone?

(3) What are some possible solutions to the identified use conflicts in

the coastal zone?

The following is a summary of the conclusions of each workshop

using this Nominal Grouping Technique. The number in parentheses

afte reach entry indicates the number of votes it received.

Fisheries

1. What do you feel are the major needs in Mississippi's coastal zone?

1. Maintain the environment (24)
2. Pollution control (21)
3. Maintain fishery potential (19)
4. Better Fishery statistics (13)
5. Control fre811 water (10)
6. I-XJ);Lndt-d re"carcli activities (10)
7. Centralization of canneries (10

-95-

8. Better economic evaluation for resource assessment (5)
9. Harvest under-utilized resources (5)
10. Licensing of fishermen and limited entry (4)
11. Private oyster leasing and opening present areas (3)
12. Develop sport fishing potential (3)
13. Vocational training (3)
14. Increase Mississippi Is shrimp fleet (2)
15. Encourage political awareness by all fishery components (2)
16. Public education (2)
17. Better marketing techniques (1)
18. Utilization of "trash" fish (0)
19. Rebuild fishing fleet (0)
20. Conserve nursing areas (0)
21. Minimize problem of federal pollution regulation (0)
22. Develop and restore oyster reefs (0)
23. Get "new blood" into industry (0)
24. Fishing vessel financing(o)
25. Mariculture (0)

Il. What do you see are the major use conflicts in the coastal zone?

1. Industrial, economic, residential, and municipal pollution
and waste disposal
2. Environmental destruction
3. Sport-commercial fishery conflict (institutional)
4. Fishery disorganization
5. Employment
6. Offshore resources development
7. Dead shell controversy
(No votes were listed for these entries)

III. What are some possible solutions to the identified use conflicts in
the coastal zone.

1. Evaluate and enforce pollution laws including regional waste
disposal systems
Z. Public education of fishery problems and solutions
3. Better interagency coordination
4. Set resource priorities
5. Land use planning and implementation
(No votes were listed for these entries)

-96-

Mineral Extraction and Fossil Fuels

L What do you feel are the major needs in Mississippi's coastal zone?

1. Evaluation of data on potential minerals and further exploration
into these mineral potentials
2. Institutional framework for the development of primary and
secondary industries on-shore and off-shore
3. Criteria for orderly development
4. Coordination on the issuance of application permits
5. Impact of oil and gas activities on cultural, social, and bio-
physical parameters
6. Understand circulation in the Mississippi Sound
7. Geologic data
8. Comprehensive, coordinated developmental plan (rules)
9. Public education of process dynamics
10. Include visual impact of proposed scheme
11. Include other impact studies (smell, etc. )
12. Design transportation /movement if developed including
perspectives
(No votes were listed for these entries)

II. What do you see are the major use conflicts in the coastal zone?

1. Stop destruction of marine resources (28)
2. Industrial expansion in areas already subject to use stress (12)
3. Overlapping governmental jurisdiction (12)
4. Pollution (10)
5. Conflict between state, local, and federal interests (10)
6. Conflict between municipalities (6)
7. Competition in land use (6)
8. Conflicting business and economic interests (5)
9. Inoperative and inefficient state controls (5)
10. Increased need for public services (3)
11. Competition for transportation facilities (2)
1Z. Competition for fresh water (1)
13. Time demand for preparation of environmental impact statements (1)
14. Definition of liability (0)
15. International conflicts (0)

III. What are some possible solutions to the identified use conflicts in
the coastal zone'?

1. Coastal zone management in action (29)
2. Coordination between governmental agencies (12)

-97-

3. Education of public--more public relations (11)
4. Research into availability of resources and into environmental
safeguards (10)
5. Continued multi-disciplinary planning and implementation (7)
6. Spirit of cooperation between all levels of government and
public for the betterment of Mississippi's coastal zone, the
state and the nation (5)
7. Regional land and water use planning (4)
8. Good zoning regulations (4)
9. Stricter state controls on industry (4)
10. Strict enforcement of existing laws and stricter penalties for
non-compliance (4)
11. Public participation in policy decisions (3)
12. Ombudsman (3)
13. Enactment of state laws and greater federal control (2)
14. Technological systems approach to problems (2)
15. Institutional ability to enact coastal zone management (0)

Recreation and Tourism

I. What do you feel are the major needs in Mississippi's coastal zone?

1. Public beach facilities
2. Unique tourist attraction
3. Public information
4. Advertising market analysis
5. State park in Jackson County
(No votes were listed for these entries)

II. What do you see are the major use conflicts in the coastal zone?

1. Money (27)
2. Lack of land-use controls (19)
3. Lack of inter-governmental cooperation (19)
4. Lack of leadership (13)
5. Environmental rules and regulations (11)
6. Lack of public awareness (9)
7. Lack of acceptable over-all plan (8)
8. Economic vs. principle (6)
9. Land speculation (3)
10. Private enterprise (2)
11. Public acceptance vs. stated plans (2)
12. Inadequate penalties (1)
13. News media image (1)

_98-

14. Lack of general coordination (0)
15. Race relations (0)
16. Transportation bottlenecks or lack of access (0)

III. What are some possible solutions to the identified use conflicts
in the coastal zone?

1. Establish professional leadership (20)
2. Inter-governmental coordination (16)
3. Implement existing plans (13)
4. Enforced land use controls (12)
5. Projects based on benefits vs. costs (12)
6. Faster response from state/federal agencies (10)
7. Eliminate duplication and overlapping (10)
8. Create tourist attraction (10)
9. Build the image (9)
10. Public awareness (forums, etc. ) (8)
11. Enact and enforce appropriate environmental controls (7)
12. Recreation and tourism surveys (5)
13. Expanded use of state/federal facilities (4)
14. Tax retention (4)
15. Areawide beautification (4)
16. Knowledgeable action (4)
17. Political /academic coordination (3)
18. New sources of money (3)
19. Restriction of heavy industry (0)
20. Good leadership (0)
21. Review title of all tidal lands (0)

Commerce and Industrial Development

I. What do you feel are the major needs in Mississippi's coastal zone?

1. Adequate transportation (29)
2. Freshwater supply (25)
3. Adequate power supply (19)
4. Adequate deep water access (17)
5. Adequate waste disposal (10)
6. Coordinated development program (10)
7. Major tourist attraction (9)
S. Adequate recreational facilities (7)
9. Adequate geological survey (6)
10. Labor data (5)
-00 11. Understanding betweeii indiistrialists and environmentalists (5)
12. Accurate environmental I)aseline (4)

- _99-

13. Offshore terminal facilities and pipeline facilities (4)
14. Adequate mass transportation (4)
15. Development of fishing industries (2)
16. Adequate housing opportunities (2)
17. Adequate man-power training facilities (1)
18. Effective drainage (0)
19. Streamline organizations controlling activities (0)
20. Lower land costs (0)
21. Projected future plans (0)
22. Adequate general educational opportunities (0)
23. Define area-wide water quality regions (0)
24. Adequate inland support industries

II. What do you see are the major use conflicts in the coastal zone?

1. Land-use conflicts (40)
2. Environmentalists' vs. industrialists' conflicts of attitudes (30)
3. Fresh water supply conflicts (25)
4. Energy use conflict (10)
5. Wetlands development conflicts (10)
6. Fishing -industrial conflict (8)
7. Status quo and change conflict (8)
8. Thermal pollution (6)
9. Waste disposal (5)
10. Agriculture and forestry conflicts (3)
11. Conflict between recreation and industry (2)
12. Population shifts (0)
13. Housing conflicts (0)
14. Transportation conflicts (0)

III. What are some possible solutions to the identified use conflicts
in the coastal zone?

1. Establish and implement coastal zone management plan (15) 'Iwo
2. Establish and fund implementation plans (11)
3. Establish geologic survey JO)
4. Education- orientation program establishment (10)
5. Establish water survey (9)
6. Establish and implement transportation plans (9)
7. Establish baseline pollution levels (9)
8. Projected needs of population (4)
9. Establish population limits (4)
10. Attract labor force (2)

_100-

11. State purchase of wetlands (0)
1Z. Establish energy allocation system (0)

Residential Development

I. What do you feel are the major needs in Mississippi's coastal zone?

1. Population threshold (23)
Z. Development of controls (17)
3. Land use legislation (16)
4. Land capability determination (16)
5. Land availability (13)
6. Citizen participation in planning (12)
7. Cost reduction (8)
8. Population density (8)
9. Strong coastal zone management agency (8)
10. Quality residential development (larger lots, treatment facilities,
etc. ) (7)
11. Access to water and sewage systems (5)
12. Insurance (5)
13. Flood plain management (5)
14. Market analysis (4)
15. Estuary utilization (2)
16. Developmental planning (zoning) (1)
17. Waste disposal (1)
18. Better transportation network (0)
19. Long range planning (0)
ZO. Innovative housing materials (0)

II. What do you see are the major use conflicts in the coastal zone?

1. Private ownership vs. public interest (25)
Z. Development vs. ecosystem protection (ZO)
3. Development vs. nature (floods) (13)
4. Sewage treatment vs. other uses (13)
5. High cost maintenance (7)
6. Special interest groups (7)
7. Intense population vs. pollution control (7)
8. Impact of controls (education process) (6)
9. High assessment (5)

-101-

10. Residential vs. recreational vs. commercial uses of
resources (5)
11. Agency conflicts (5)
12. Quality vs. cost effectiveness (5)
13. Development vs. agricultural uses (5)
14. Public service vs. public interest (3)
15. Industrial water use vs. residential use (2)
16. Residential vs. recreation (2)
17. Residential canals vs. water quality (1)
18. Over commercializing in residential areas (0)
19. Quality vs. quantity housing development (0)

III. What are some possible solutions to the identified use conflicts
in the coastal zone?

1. Public involvement (educational process) (27)
2. Effective planning (long range) (19)
3. Effective coastal zone management (interagency governmental
cooperation) (17)
4. Effective controls (13)
5. Zoning and land use legislation (11)
6. Funding (9)
7. Population controls (8)
8. Research (5)
9. Identify the planners (4)
10. Protection of wetlands (4)
11. Pollution controls (3)

Transportation and Navigation

I. What do you feel are the major needs in Mississippi's coastal zone?

1. Deeper channels to ports (21)
2. Industry or tourism? (15)
3. Complete evaluation of state ports /waterway needs (13)
4. Development of plan to satisfy those needs (13)
5. Standard code of rules and regulations for coastal environ-
mental control (10)
6. Method of high-speed mass transportation (10)
7. Solution to dredge spoil disposal problems (9)
8. Deep draft superports (10)
9. Oil spill protection (8)

10. Local/regional transportation coordination (6)
11. increased highway load capacity (4)
12. North-south interstate highways for Pascagoula and
Gulf port-Jackson-Memphis (4)
13. Execute plans (3)
14. Development of restrictions adjacent to transportation routes (3)
15. Completion of 1-10 (3)
16. Better traffic light system on Highway 90 (1)
17. On-shore pumpout facilities for boat toilets (1)
18. Improve aesthetics and landscaping (1)
19. Better navigational aids (0) ;
20. Commercial and recreational boating conflicts (0)
21. Air freight service (0)
22. Commercial public off-loading wharves (0)
Z 3. Seaside parking and service facilities (0)

II. What do you see are the major use conflicts in the coastal zone?

1. Industrial uses and recreation and tourism (33)
Z. Dredging vs. biotic resources (23)
3. Wetlands in natural state vs. use of dredge spoil or industrial
areas (18)
4. Use of Highway 90 along beach for commercial and private
vehicles (16)
5. Land use conflicts (zoning) (15)
6. Conflict between municipal sewage disposal and recreation
and commercial fishing (10)
7. Forced land use vs. private ownership choice (9)
8. Aesthetics of beaches vs. industry (5)
9. Risk cargo vs. normal cargoes in port (3)
10. Social conflicts and minority workers vs. recreation (Z)
11. Residential housing vs. recreation /hotel development (1)
12. No definite rules or guidelines on conflicts (0)

III. What are some possible solutions to the identified use conflicts
in the coastal zone?

1. Build marsh islands out of dredge spoils (20)
2. Comprehensive development planning (16)
3. Decide priorities --industrial, recreational, or tourism (15)
4. Proper planning and zoning (1Z)
5. Interagency coordination (10)
6. Massive public support for proposed future coastal zone (10)
7. Complete 1-10 and a major north-south route (8)
8. High-speed mass transit (8)

-103-

9. Taxation of destructive uses to pay for rehabilitation (7)
10. Local referendums (5)
11. Inspired political leadership (5)
12. Create a local- state -f ede ral advisory committee on trans-
portation and navigation problems (5)
13. Set standard guidelines to resolve conflicts (3)
14. Survey to define wetlands (3)
15. Closer monitoring and control of destructive uses (2)
16. Designate alternate routes for commercial traffic (Z)
17. Set special areas for dredge spoil disposal (2)
18. Authoritative and unified execution of the comprehensive
plan (1)
19. Refer land-use conflicts to Gulf Regional Planning Commission
for study and evaluation (1)
20. Management plan for water use development (0)
21. Use Gulf Coast Research Laboratory to evaluate dredge
problems (0)

Waste Disposal

I. What do you feel are the major needs in Mississippi's coastal zone?

1. Funding
2. Uniform rules, guidelines, and information of the laws
3. Cleaner coastal waters (recreational)
4. Better community understanding
5. Planned or zone development
(No votes were listed for these entries)

II. What do you see are the major use conflicts in the coastal zone?

1. Ecosystem absorption capacity (land vs. water)
2. Land developers
3. Population growth
4. People vs. cost
5. Easy disposal vs. higher expense treatment
6. Industrial waste pollutants
7. Siting
8. Industrial vs. domestic use of land
9. Water uses
10. Industries and recreation
11. Local governmental authorities

-104-

12. Funding for public use vs. public behalf
13. Priority of funding
14. Public access vs. private control of water resources
15. Regional vs. local planning
16. Local land management conflicts
17. Public awareness
18. Land development vs. conservationists
19. Violation of water quality standards
2 . Water disposal vs. fishing
21. Impact assessment
(No votes were listed for these entries)

III. What are some possible solutions to the identified use. conflicts
in the coastal zone?

1. Equalization of costs (reassessment)
2. Proper zoning
3. Utilization of recoverable substances to defray costs
4. Inventory of disposal needs by geographic area
5. Reclamation of polluted air, water, and land
6. Tax considerations for land developers
7. Design parameters must be met before permit issued
8. Establish public awareness
9. Cease growth
10. Regionalization of disposal
11. Assess impact of new development
12. Identify area of concern
13. Rationalize EPA regulations
14. Sound local laws and ordinances for control
15. Governmental (all levels) coordination
16, Do we want "good ole days"?
17. Control population density
(No votes were listed for these entries)

If time permitted, each workshop was asked to discuss and then

submit their definition of the coastal zone. The following is a synopsis
Ilk
of the findings of those workshops discussing the definition of the coastal

zone.

1,'islieries- -Lower coastal plains seaward to the Outer Continental

Shelf and inland to include the lower two tiers of the Mississippi counties.

-105-

Residential Development--(l) Stay within boundaries of political sub-

divisions, (2) the three coastal counties, (3) contour of natural area, feet

elevation, and (4) alter band from rural to urban.

Transportation and Navigation--The contiguous zones of land, air and

water, including the wetlands of the state and their contributing ecosystems,

extending seaward to the limit of the Continental Shelf and landward to en-

compass all significant species of flora and fauna dependent on the proximity

of the sea for their survival? and including recreational, residential, com-

mercial, industrial, and/or extractive uses which have, or could have, direct

impact on the coastal environment.

Waste Disposal- -The three coastal counties extending seaward to the

wetlands boundary as defined by law.

In the last general session the first question (what do you feel are the

major needs of Mississippi's coastal zone?) was addressed by the conference

as a whole. Each workshop chairman submitted the five topics which received

the most votes in their individual groups. These were submitted to the entire

delegation. Each conferee was asked to pick the five which he felt were most

important, and then rank these five by assigning a weight of from five to one

for each.

The following, quite interestingly, is a summary of the conclusions of

the conferees as.a whole addressing this first question. The number in

parentheses after each entry indicates the number of votes it received.

-106-

What do you feel are the major needs in Mississippi's coastal zone?

1. Maintain environment (130)
2. Standard code of rules and regulations for coastal zone
environmental control (86)
3. Adequate waste disposal facilities (65)
4. Criteria for orderly development (54)
5. Fresh water supply (49)
6. Expanded research activities (47)
7. Land use legislation (47)
8. Land capability determinations (44)
9. Control fresh water (42)
10. Better community understanding (41)
11. Population threshold (41)
12. Adequate transportation (40)
13. Funding (3 9)
14. Plan for zone development (39)
15. Public information (38)
16. Coordination on the issuance of application permits in
the state (36)
17. Decide priority industry or tourism (36)
18. Adequate deep water access (27)
19. Cleaner coastal waters for recreation (26)
20. Maintain fishery potential (24)
21. Unique tourism attractions (19)
22. An institutional framework. for the development of primary
and secondary industries on- and off-shore (18)
23. Evaluation of data on potential minerals and exploration of
these minerals (15)
24. High-speed mass transportation (11)
25. Uniform rules, guidelines and information of laws (11)
26. Develop controls (10)
Z 7. Public beach facilities (10)
28. Better fishery potential (9)
29. Adequate power for energy supply (8)
30. Complete evaluation of state ports and waterway needs with
a developmental plan to satisfy these needs (8)
31. State park--Jackson County (8)
32. Dredge spoil disposal problems (7)
33. Land availability (4)
34. Advertising market analysis (3)
35. Impact of oil and gas activities on cultural, social, economic
and biophysical parameters (2)

-107-

CONFERENCE SUMMARY

Bruce W. Mattox, Ph.D.
Director, Mis sis sippi -Alabama Sea Grant Consortium
Member, Mississippi Marine Resources Council

After our work here for the past two days, I think we must admit

that the conflicts of resources use in the coastal zone are real. We

know there are going to be differences of opinion between people who

want to use the resources of the coastal zone. We seem to have also

discovered that the real world demands that we consider conservation.

Conservation may be a bad word, perhaps. If this group was asked

the meaning of conservation, we would probably get as many answers

as there are people in the audience. However, conservation, if we

divorce it from all the value judgements, simply means whether we

are extending our resources into the future or whether we are using

them up now. Conservation implies use. It is not preservation, since

preservation implies non-use.

We have classified three types of resources along the coast.

These are stock resources, flow resources, and renewable resources.

Stock resources, by definition, are those which can be used up. There

is only a finite amount. Flow resources are those which, if not used

at a particular point in time, are wasted. Renewable resources, as

we have found, are those which can reproduce and can be harvested

al
_109-

continually without destruction if the parent stock is maintained. With

shrimp, oysters, and fisheries, we know that if a particular parent

population is maintained, there will be an amount available for mankind

to harvest. If we get to the point where that parent population cannot

renew itself we are in a critical zone, which means we do not have

enough of the parent population to make the crop or the progeny from

that parent population available to mankind on a sustained basis. Under-

standing these resources is basic to any coastal zone management plan.

We have indirectly considered opportunity costs, the costs of

alternatives foregone. We find ourselves in the position where some of

our resources would be better oriented toward other uses in the coastal

zone. For example, how many people can a particular resource,

perhaps shrimp, sustain? This is another key issue identified during

our conference. If we get in the position where we have too many

fishermen for our resources and the income of all concerned is lowered,

then we have to consider alternative types of investments along the coast.

People need work. If they cannot make a living from the traditional

types of employment, then we must consider their opportunities in

other types of employment. The best allocation of human resources

on the coast, whether in fisheries or other types of employment, is

crucial to coastal zone management.

Going back to the purposes of the conference I stated yesterday

which were to conform,, inform, perform, deform, reform, and maidenform,

_110-

I think we have met all of our objectives to this point. We have conformed

to the spirit of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 197Z. We have

performed in the sense that we have had excellent speakers to inform us

and you have informed the managers of what you need from the Coastal

Zone Management Program in Mississippi in the future. We have

deformed by tearing down the traditional boundaries of the coast.

We have considered not only the coastal counties but the whole of sou-

them Mississippi. We have reformed that into a preliminary definition

of what the coastal zone should be, including how far inland, as well as

seaward, it should extend. We have preformed many thoughts by listing

your ideas concerning the needs, use conflicts, and possible solutions

in the coastal zone.

I mentioned maidenform yesterday, so will not dwell. on that at

this time. However, we did talk about your support. We have talked

about an uplift in cooperation. We have talked about changing the contours

of the coast. We have talked about it from the standpoint of an increased

population and from the standpoint of the beauty and quality of life. The

key phrase here seems to be "the quality of life," which does include

economic gain. Reconciling these things requires the spirit of

cooperation- -working together to make coastal zone management work.

LUNCHEON ADDRESS INTRODUCTION

The Honorable Edward A. Khayat
President, Jackson County Board of Supervisors

If ever there was a man related to the coast or to water, certainly

that is our speaker today. He was born in Gulfport, Mississippi, on the

water. He graduated from St. Stanislaus College on the Bay of St. Louis.

He went to Marion Institute, Alabama, close to the Alabama River, and

later to the University of Mississippi near the Sardis Reservoir. He still

had not been around water enough so he joined the U. S. Merchant Marine

Academy at Kingsport, New York, and later joined the Navy.

He was involved in the seafood industry along with his deceased

father and his brother who now sits with him. He has served as Chairman

of the Mississippi Marine Conservation Commission and as President of

the State Port Authority at Gulfport. He was Special Assistant to Governor

Paul B. Johnson who helped us build that great shipyard in Jackson County

which employs over 19, 000 citizens. He is now a Legislative Assistant to

U. S. Senator James 0. Eastland, and he serves on the Board of Directors

of the American Oceanic Organization.

Ladies and gentlemen , we are proud to present a great friend of the

State of Mississippi, working for a great Senator in America, William G.

(Bill) Simpson, Legislative Assistant to U. S. Senator Jim Eastland.

-113-

LUNCHEON ADDRESS

William G. Simpson, Legislative Assistant 0
to U. S. Senator James Eastland

I am honored. to.have been invited to participate in this important 0

conference, and happy, as always, to be home again.

I bring you Senator Jim Eastland's personal greeting and his warmest

best wishes for your success. I am proud, as I know you are, of his recog-

niz.ed..Position as a national leader in the field of water-related activity.

You will have his strong support in all of your endeavors.

I want to sincerely commend the agencies and individuals who put this

meeting together. In -pursuit of a worthy goal you have blended good minds,

good will, and dedicated leadership.

OnAhe subject of dedicated leadership, a salute to the Governor of

,Mississippi is certainly in order today. This conference is symbolic of the

forward -looking, wide-horizon approach which has been a hallmark of the

Waller Administration.

I Before I get Jnto my assignment on this program, I should like to

offer an observation and present a brief report.

My observation is that you have accepted a mission vital to Mississippi,

the Gulf South, and the United. States. I refer, of course, to the tough and

demanding task of coastal zone management.

Our hopes for accomplishment in ocean activities are high, but no

attainment on or under the waters can be, or should be, stopped at the water's

edge.

-114-

With proper and productive planning and management in the Coastal

Zone our victories at sea are translatable into benefits for our people.

Without it, our great aspirations for the utilization of the oceans in the

cause of the advancement of America will not, indeed, cannot be fulfilled.

Permit me to report to you, briefly, on the status of Senator Eastland's

national program "to save commercial fishing and serve sport fishing. " It

is a people's program in the purest sense. Three entities, the Atlantic States

Marine Fisheries Commission, our own Gulf States Marine Fisheries Com-

mission, and the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission, will act as agents of

the Congress to gather information for the proposal. That information will be

furnished directly by men and women whose livelihood and lives are interwoven

with our sport and commercial fishing industries.

The initial step was the establishment of a national policy, a clear and

strong statement, expressing America's determination to support her fishing

interests.

Senator Eastland, joined by forty-three other members of the Senate,

introduced a Concurrent Resolution to put this foundation for our work in place.

It was adopted by the Senate on a voice vote. With the enthusiastic and effective

support of Congressman Trent Lott and others it passed the House on a record

vote of 405 to 0.

Our national policy was approved by the Congress without a single dis-

senting vote and our foundation is there for us to build on.

Step One of the overall process is completed. The Senator has already

launched Step Two. He has pending before our Appropriations Committee

a request for over $500, 000. These funds will be used by the three com-

missions to hold face-to-face meetings with the people involved in every

aspect of commercial and sport fishing operations. These open, public,

"Town Hall" types of gatherings will be held up and down the Atlantic Sea-

board, through our Gulf area, and all along the Pacific Coast. When this

program for the people has been written by the people, we move to Step

Three.

IlExecutive" or "Steering" Committees will be chosen from the Gulf,

Pacific, and Atlantic regions. Armed with facts from the fishing industries

and backed by the millions of citizens involved in the industries, our com-

mittees will be prepared to meet with Federal officials at the highest levels.

The Committees and the officials can then proceed to hammer out the final

and inclusive legislative package which will give our land, at last, a national

program which, in the Senator's words, 'Iwill assist every American involved

directly or indirectly in fishing activities from Maine to Hawaii, from Alaska

to Florida.

In 1969 a report entitled "Our Nation and the Sea" included this state-

ment: ''How fully and wisely the United States uses the sea in the decades

ahead will affect profoundly its security, its economy, its ability to meet

increasing demands for food and raw materials, its position and influence in

the World Community, and the quality of the environment in which its people

live.

-116-

The Senate of the United States unaimously adopted S. Res. 222

and launched the National Ocean Policy Study because it is convinced,

I believe, of two facts. The first is that the waters of the world will,

indeed, affect profoundly the lives of all Americans and be a major factor

in shaping the future of this small and fragile planet. The second is that

our great nation is not doing enough to confront the challenges and seize

the opportunities that await us beyond our shores.

Senator Magnusonof Washington, Senator Eastland, and Senator

Hollings of South Carolina proposed the Resolution. Eastland from the

Gulf area, Magnuson from the Pacific Coast, and Hollings from the Atlantic

Seaboard, joined by more than sixty Senators of both parties, led the way

to set in motion a study aimed at action--action at the national and inter-

national levels, action for the benefit of America, action for mankind.

Time does not permit us to examine all of the facets of ocean-related

activity. In order, therefore, that we might weigh challenge against oppor-

tunity on the seas in the last quarter of the Twentieth Century, let us look

across the waters at the matters targeted for us in the language I quoted

from the 1969 report.

Security is first, as it should be, since every human lives in the

shadow of thermonuclear weaponry. Some see the oceans as a source of

added danger. I regard them to be central to our defensive strength. I am

persuaded, for example, that our Polaris /Poseidon submarines, to be re-

placed by the Trident system, are the strongest deterrent force on Earth,

-117-

our best insurance policy for peace. You all know the old infantry adage

which states that "all you need is dry socks and the high ground. " I suggest

that the only "high ground" left on this planet may be the depths of the seas.

The Armed Forces Committee occupies a position of leadership in the

National Ocean Policy Study.

Our nation's economy is high on our list. Again, it certainly should

be. If our mighty economic machinery fails the United States fails as surely

as if we were conquered in armed conflict.

Let me attempt to connect economic health with salt water in the context

of the problems that beset us today. In the vital field of energy, consider two

factors. One is the potential of the Outer Continental Shelf, where we will

extract what we must have from below the surface of the sea. The other is

the vast quantities of petroleum we will be forced to import across the seas

in the years ahead. At this point is, of course, where the term "superport"

assumes a position of priority.

How many business and industrial operations in every corner of our

country import or export raw materials or finished products? I assert that

each of them is directly dependent on the oceans. I heard a President of the

United States say in our neighboring City of New Orleans, "We must trade or

fade. " He was right and he encompassed a long and varied list of needs in

those five words- -needs like a modern merc'hant fleet, port facilities and

channel r-lepths to serve this land and her trading partners, and to deliver to

An-wrica all or part of the sixty-nine of the seventy-two items she requires

_118- 0

for stability, growth and progress. These things must move across the

greatest highways in the world, the highways we call oceans.

The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs concerned with energy,

the Commerce Committee involved with trade, the Labor Committee con-

cerned with jobs, the Committee on Public Works, and the Foreign Relations

Committee are all in the forefront of the study.

Our report cited "ability to meet increasing demands for food and raw

materials. " We have dealt with concrete plans for the revitalization of our

fishing industries, but we must and we can go beyond even this solid step.

Some day we will be required to seed and weed and harvest the oceans. Very

soon we will need to develop and utilize the mineral resources of the deep

seabed in an economically and environmentally sound manner.

The 1969 report speaks of our country's ''position and influence in the

World Community. " That position and the degree of influence we can exert

are critical elements in the day-to-day lives of men and women whose homes

are in places as far apart as Rome, Italy, and Rome, Georgia. The strategic

importance of the oceans has been set before us dramatically twice in the

recent past. The Yorn Kippur War and the Turkish-Greek conflict on Cyprus

pointed up the suddenness with which crisis conditions can arise and the direct

relationship between the use of the seas and the keeping of the peace in the

world.

In this general field, let me assure that Senators connected with the

Ocean Policy Study are monitoring very closely the Law of the Sea Conference

now in progress in Caracas, Venezuela.

_119-

Last, but certainly not least, the "Our Nation and the Sea" report

speaks of the "quality of the environment in which our people live. " Here

we regard the legitimate interests of the vast number of Americans who

have been drawn to work, live, play and retire near the oceans. Here,

also, we must bring into play all the talent in this room and elsewhere in

this great and generous land to formulate and launch dynamic ocean research

programs. We must seize and retain leadership in ocean technology. Surely

the nation that sent men to the moon can lead the earth in the exploration of

the seas.

Finally, a constant thread that runs through and binds together the wide

variety of efforts I have touched on is your vital mission of coastal zone

management. Senator Eastland is fully aware, as I am, as all of you are, of

the magnitude and complexity of the task we have undertaken with the National

Ocean Policy Study, especially in view of the fact that the Study is aimed, not

at the production of a report, but rather at specific and progressive action

across the spectrum of activity related to the seas.

The challenge is in direct proportion to the vast reaches of the oceans.

However, opportunity is there on the same huge scale- -opportunity that can

be grasped and moulded into the brightest day America has ever seen.

I would like to leave you with this thought: When we are told, as we will

be, that the problems are many, that the difficulties are mountainous, that our

resources are limited, I ask you to recall with me the words of President

Kennedy which say, "We have come too far, we have sacraficed too much to

disdain the future now.

_120-

I respectfully suggest to this distinguished gathering that the United

States possesses the courage and the character to journey much farther,

to sacrafice yet more, to fashion a future that will be a credit to the Race

of Men, the Children of God.

0 APPENDIX

a,
mo

CONFERENCE AGENDA

Governor's Conference on Coastal Zone Management
Sheraton-Biloxi Motor Inn
Biloxi, Mississippi

Wednesday, July24, 1974

9:00 a.m. Conference Registration, Grand Ballroom Lobby,
Sheraton-Biloxi Motor Inn

Morning Session: Grand Ballroom
10:00 a. rn. - 12:00 m.

10:00 a.m. Welcoming Address:
The Honorable Jerry O'Keefe, Mayor, City of Biloxi

Purposes of Conference:
Bruce W. Mattox, Ph.D., Director, Mississippi-
Alabama Sea Grant Consortium

Local, State, and Federal Perspectives of
Coastal Zone Management

10:30 a.m. "Benefits To Be Derived From Coastal Zone Management"
The Honorable Ben H. Stone, State Senator, State of
Mississippi

"The Relationship of the Mississippi Marine Resources
Council to Coastal Zone Management"
Donald J. Cuevas., Vice Chairman, Mississippi Marine
Resources Council

"The Coastal Zone Management Plan for Mississippi"
James B. Rucker, Ph. D. , Executive Director,
Mississippi Marine Resources Council

"Coastal Zone Management--An Overview From the
Federal Standpoint"
Robert W. Knecht, Director, Office of Coastal
Environment, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

12:00 m. Luncheon: Top of the Sheraton
Master of Ceremonies:
Roland Weeks, President and General Manager,
Gulf Publishing Co., Inc.

Speaker:
The Honorable Aaron R. Schwartz, Texas State
Senator; Chairman, Coastal States Organization

Afternoon Session: Grand Ballroom
2:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.

Areas of Critical Interest In
Coastal Zone Management

2:00 p. m., Panel Discussion
Moderator:
The Honorable William C. Rhodes, State Senator,
State of Mississippi

Panel:
Fisheries
William J. Demoran, Mississippi Marine Conservation
Commission, Mississippi Marine Resources Council

Mineral Extraction and Fossil Fuels
Terry Owen, Petroleum Engineer, State Oil and Gas Board

Recreation and Tourism
Edward J. Keels, Chairman of Board, Gulf Coast
Inkeepers Association

Commerce and Industrial Development
James W. Miller, Manager of Industrial Development,
Mississippi Agricultural and Industrial Board

Residential Devel-opment
D. L. Anderson, Manager, Gulf Coast District,
Mississippi Research and Development Council

Transportation and Navigation
W. Larry Harris, Coordinator of Ports and Harbors
Development, Mississippi Agricultural and Industrial qP
Board

Waste Disposal
Bob Monette, Regional Engineer, Mississippi Air
and Water Pollution Control Commission

4:00 p.m. Workshop Sessions

6:3 0 p.m. Social Hour: Gulf Rooms

7:3 0 p.m. Dinner: Grand Ballroom
Master of Ceremonies:
Donald J. Cuevas, Vice Chairman, Mississippi Marine
Resources Council

Governor's Address:
The Honorable William L. Waller, Governor, State
of Mississippi

Thursday, July 24, 1974

Morning Session: Grand Ballroom
9: 0 0 a.m. - 12: 00 m.

Areas of Critical Interest In
Coastal Zone Management (Continued)

dk 9: 00 a.m. Workshops (Continued)

10:30 a.m. Reports by Workshop Chairmen: Grand Ballroom

11: 4 5 a.m. Conference Summary:
Bruce W. Mattox,, Ph.D., Director, Mis sis sippi -Alabama
Sea Grant Consortium

lz:00 m. Luncheon: Top of the Sheraton
Master of Ceremonies:
The Honorable Edward A. Khayat, President, Jackson
County Board of Supervisors

Speaker:
William G. Simpson, Legislative Assistant to United
States Senator James 0. Eastland

Adjournment

CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS

D. L. Anderson, Manager W. M. Bost, Director
Gulf Coast District of the Mississippi Extension Service
Mississippi Research and Box 5446
Development Center Mississippi State, Miss. 39762
Gulf Park College
Long Beach, Miss. 39560 Dr. Karl Brenkert, Jr.
Dean of Engineering
Mrs. Ann Avent University of Mississippi
Executive Director Carrier Hall
Pas-Point Area Chamber of University, Miss. 38677
Commerce
P. 0. Drawer P Ann Brooks
Pascagoula, Miss. 39567 Ole Miss Law School
University of Mississippi
Robert J. Bailey, Director University, Miss. 38677
Division of Historic Sites
and Archaeology Joe Brown
Department of Archives State Health Officer
and History Mississippi State Board of Health
P. 0. Box 571 P. 0. Box 1700
Jackson, Miss. 39205 Jackson, Miss. 39205

Jackson T. Balch Dr. Lewis R. Brown
Director, Mississippi Test Associate Dean
Facility Mississippi State University
Bay St. Louis, Miss. 39520 Drawer CU
Mississippi State, Miss. 39762
P. T. Bankston
Governor's Science Advisor Catherine Campbell
State Capitol Public Information Officer
Jackson, Miss. 39205 Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
P. 0. Drawer AG
Vernon Beherhorst, Director Ocean Springs, Miss. 39564
Louisiana Coastal Commission
P. 0. Box 1006, USL Cornelia Carrier
Lafayette, La. 70501 Environmental Writer
The Times-Picayune
Jerry J. Bodin 3800 Howard Avenue
Member, Mississippi Marine New Orleans., La. 70140
Resources Council
P. 0. Box 2 15
Biloxi, Miss. 39530

-129-

J. Y. Christmas Mrs. Louis F. Crawford
Assistant Director for Fisheries Harrison County Parkway Commission
Gulf Coast Research Laboratory 106 Sea Pines Road
P. 0. Drawer AG Long Beach, Miss. 39560
Ocean Springs, Miss. 39564
Donald J. Cuevas
Freida Collins Vice Chairman, Mississippi Marine
Ole Miss Law School Resources Council
University of Mississippi P. 0. Box 548
University, Miss. 38677 Gulfport, Miss. 39501

Richard J. Collins E. V. Curry, Councilman 0
Insect and Disease Director City of Pascagoula
Mississippi Forestry Commission Pascagoula, Miss. 39567
908 Robert E. Lee Building
Jackson, Miss. 39201 Charles D'Agostino
Assistant Director
Rosanna Cook Louisiana State Science Foundation
WROA Radio NSTL--NASA, Building 1110
Gulfport, Miss. 39501 Bay St. Louis, Miss. 39520

Charles H. Cooper Dr. Donnie L. Daniel
WOSM Radio Research Associate, Bureau of
P. 0. Box 789 Business Research
Ocean Springs, Miss. 39564 University of Southern Mississippi
Southern Station, Box 5331
J. B. Cooper Hattiesburg, Miss. 39401
Harrison County Development 0
Commission V. J. Daniel, Jr. . President
81Z East Beach Boulevard Mississippi Power Company
Gulfport, Miss. 39501 2992 West Beach
P. 0. Box 4079
Charles Cowart Gulfport, Miss. 39501 0
Harrison County Development
Commission Curtis Davis, Executive Dean
P. 0. Box 569 Mississippi Gulf Coast Junior
Gulfport, Miss. 39501 C ollege- -Jackson County Campus
Gautier, Miss. 39533
Dr. Bobby E. Craven
Associate Professor of Science John H. DeLuca
Education Gulfport Planning Commission
Member, Mississippi Marine 3600 25th Avenue
Resources Council Gulfport, Miss. 39501
Box 5328, USM
Hattiesburg, Miss. 39401

-130-

William J. Demoran C. Harold Finn
Mississippi Marine Conservation Staff Planner
Commission Office of State Planning
Mississippi Marine Resources P. 0. Box 444Z5, Capitol Station
Council Baton Rouge, La. 70804
Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
P. 0. Drawer AG R. Rodney Foil
Ocean Springs, Miss. 39564 Dean, School of Forest Resources
Mississippi State University
A. Paul Desmarais P. 0. Drawer FR
Deputy Director Mississippi State, Miss. 3976Z
Gulf Regional Planning Commission
P. 0. Box 1346 Walter F. Fountain
Gulfport, Miss. 39501 General Manager
Biloxi Chamber of Commerce
J. F. Douglas, J r. P. 0. Drawer CC
Gulf Regional Planning Commission Biloxi, Miss. 39533
P. 0. Box 787
Ocean Springs, Miss. 39564 Joseph Garrard , Alderman
City of Ocean Springs
Dr. Lionel N. Eleuterius Ocean Springs, Miss. 39564
Botanist
Gulf Coast Research Laboratory Larry Gartman, Alderman
P. 0. Drawer AG City of Ocean Springs
Ocean Springs, Miss. 39564 Ocean Springs, Miss. 39564

Capt. Robert C. Engram Francis Geoghegan, Director
Port Director Commission of Budget and Accounting
Mississippi State Port Authority Box Z67
at Gulfport Jackson, Miss. 39205
P. 0. Box 40
Gulfport, Miss. 39501 J. Lucian Gilbert
Director of Trade Development
Roy S. Estess Jackson County Port Authority
Activity Support Manager P. 0. Box 878
NASA--NSTL Pascagoula, Miss. 39567
1114 Parkwood Circle
Picayune, Miss. 39466 Joe Gill
Mississippi Marine Resources Council
Dr. David J. E t zold P. 0. Box 497
Bureau of Business Research Long Beach, Miss. 39560
University of Southern Mississippi
P. 0. Box 5331, Soutbern Station
Ilattie8burg, Miss. 39401

-131-

Richard Glaczier Larry Harris
The Daily Herald Coordinator of Ports and Harbors
DeBuys Road Development
Biloxi, Miss. 39533 Mississippi Agricultural and
Industrial Board
Larry Goldman P. 0. Box 849
Marine Programs Biologist Jackson, Miss. 39ZO5
Mississippi Marine Resources
C ounc il Jerry Hemphill
P. 0. Box 497 Executive Secretary
Long Beach, Miss. 39560 Mississippi Coast Coliseum Commission
4646 West Beach, Suite 5C
Matt Grace, Chairman Biloxi, Mississippi 39531
Ocean Springs Planning Commission
City Hall Donald Henninger
Ocean Springs, Miss. 39564 Regional Planner
Bureau of Land Management
Moody Grishman, Commissioner Suite 3ZOO, The Plaza Tower
Biloxi Planning Commission New Orleans, La. 70113
131Z West Howard Avenue
Biloxi, Miss. 39530 Nevil D. Holmberg
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Wade Guice, Director U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Harrison County Civil Defense 17 Executive Park Drive, N. E.
Council Atlanta, Ga. 30303
P. 0. Box 68
Gulfport, Miss. 39501 Dr. Harold D. Howse
Director' Gulf Coast Research
Dr. Gordon Gunter Laboratory
Professor of Zoology P. 0. Drawer AG
Director Emeritus, Gulf Coast Ocean Springs, Miss. 39564
Research Laboratory
P. 0. Drawer AG Raymond J. Hudachek
Ocean Springs, Miss. 39564 Jackson County Planning Commission
P. 0. Box 1300
Nicholas Haas, President Pascagoula, Miss. 39567
Hancock County Chamber of
Commerce L. Willis Hyde
Bay St. Louis, Miss. 39520 Technical Advisor, Alabama Coastal
Area Board
John Hamilton, Director Alabama Development Office
Legislative Audit Commission State Office Building
Box 1204 Montgomery, Alabama 36104
Jackson, Miss. 39205

Louis H. Jobe, Jr., M.D. James H. Kennedy
County Health Officer Gulfport Planning Commission
Harrison County Health Department P. 0. Box 718
203 South Shore Drive Gulfport, Miss. 39501
Biloxi., Miss. 39532
Edward A. Khayat, President
Dianne Jones Jackson County Board of Supervisors
Administrative Assistant to P. 0. Box 664
the Director Moss Point, Miss. 39563
Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant
Consortium Lucien W. Kidd, Commissioner
P. 0. Drawer AG City of Bay St. Louis
Ocean Springs, Miss. 39564 South Second Street
Bay St. Louis, Miss. 39520
H. G. Justice
Civil Defense Operations Officer Robert W. Knecht, Director
Box 6631 Office of Coastal Environment
Jackson, Miss. 39212 National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Edward J. Keels Rockville, Maryland 20852
Board Chairman, Gulf Coast
Inkeepers Association Luther A. Knight, Jr.
1117 Walda Circle Associate Professor of Biology
Biloxi,, Miss. 39531 University of Mississippi
Universities Center, 1855 Eastover Drive
W. L. Kerley Jackson, Miss. 39211
Area Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service--USDA Clarence M. Ladner
P. 0. Box 328 Commissioner of Finance
Hattiesburg, Miss. 39401 City of Bay St. Louis
P. 0. Box 310
Dr. John King Bay St. Louis, Miss. 39520
Recreational Planning Consultant
Deposit Guaranty National Bank R. J. LaFollette
Building Program Analysis Office
Jackson, Miss. 39205 National Marine Fisheries Service
9450 Gandy Boulevard
Earl Koskela St. Petersburg, Fla. 33702
Mississippi Marine Resources
C ounc il Larry Lewis
P. 0. Box 546 Mississippi Marine Resources Council
Pascagoula, Miss. 39567 P. 0. Box 497
Long Beach, Miss. 39560
_4

Charles Lippian Thomas D. Mcllwain
State Representative Marine Biologist
P. 0. Box 1015 Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
Pascagoula, Miss. 39567 P. 0. Drawer AG
Ocean Springs, Miss. 39564
Jacob T. Lockard, Secretary
Jackson County Port Authority Dr. J. Chester McKee
Rt. 4, Box 91 Vice President for Research
Ocean Springs, Miss. 39564 Mississippi State University
Drawer G
Bill Lucas Mississippi State, Miss. 39762
Mississippi Marine Resources
Council Stephen McNair
P. 0. Box 497 Pass Christian Chamber of Commerce
Long Beach, Miss. 39560 P. 0. Box 307
Pass Christian, Miss. 39571
Della McCaughan
University of Southern Mississippi, John A. Martiniere, Director
Gulf Park Branch Biloxi Port Commission
Long Beach, Miss. 39560 P. 0. Drawer I
Biloxi, Miss. 39533
Willie L. McDaniel, Jr.
Associate Dean Mike Matheney
College of Engineering Ocean Springs Planning Commission
Mississippi State University 1100 East Cherokee Glenn
Drawer DE Ocean Springs, Miss. 39564
Mississippi State, Miss. 3976Z Dr. Bruce W. Mattox, Director
D. C. McInnis Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant
Marketing Division Consortium
State Department of Agriculture P. 0. Drawer AG
Walter Sillers Building Ocean Springs, Miss. 39564
Jackson, Miss. 39205
Victor Mavar
Charles McKellar Mavar Shrimp and Oyster Co., Inc.
Governor's Press Secretary P. 0. Drawer 208
The Capitol Biloxi, Miss. 39533
Jackson, Miss. 39205
Edward A. May
J. Baron McIlwain Assistant to the Coordinator
Coordinator of Coastal Zone Federal-State Programs
Management Activities Suite 400, Watkins fluilding
Mississippi-Alabania Sea Grant F)10 Gcorgc Stre(-.1
Consortiuni 'jackgon, Miss. 392,01
1". 0. Drawer AG
Ocean Springs, Miss. 39564

Ernest C. Melvin, President Joe C. Moseley
Harrison County Board of Executive Director
Supervisors Texas Coastal and Marine Council
613 East Howard Avenue P. 0. Box 13407
Biloxi, Miss. 39530 Austin, Texas 78711

James W. Miller Nell Murray
Manager, Industrial Development Research Assistant, Bureau of
Mississippi Agricultural and Business Research
Industrial Board University of Southern Mississippi
P. 0. Box 849 P. 0. Box 94, Southern Station
Jackson, Miss. 39205 Hattiesburg, Miss. 39401

Sylvia Minor Allen Neel, Planner
Mississippi Marine Resources South Mississippi Planning and
Council Development Commission
P. 0. Box 497 P. 0. Box 2057
Long Beach, Miss. 39560 Hattiesburg, Miss. 39401

Bob Monette Jerry O'Keefe, Mayor
Regional Engineer City of Biloxi
Mississippi Air and Water City Hall
Pollution Control Commission Lameuse Street
Ocean Springs, Miss. 39564 Biloxi, Miss. 39530

D. W. Mooneyham, Director John T. O'Keefe, President
NASA/ Earth Resources Laboratory Mississippi Manufacturers Association
National Space Technology P@ 0. Box 22607
Laboratories Jackson, Miss. 39205
Bay St. Louis, Miss. 39520
Red Oliver, Planning Director
William F. Moore, Deputy Director General Land Office
Ameraport Offshore Harbor and 1700 Congress Street
Terminal Commission Austin, Texas 78701
Bel Air Office Mall II, Suite 119
3100 Cottage Hill Road Terry Owen, Petroleum Engineer
Mobile, Alabama 36606 State Oil and Gas Board
P. 0. Box 1332
William H. Moore, State Geologist Jackson, Miss, 39201
Mississippi Geological Survey
P. 0. Box 4915 Leon 0. Paulette
Jackson, Miss. 39216 Leader, Sea Grant Advisory Service
P. 0. Box 4557
-.00 Biloxi, Miss. 39533

John 0. Paxton Dr. Gomer Pound, Dean
Manager of Public Affairs Division of Extension and Public
Mississippi Power Company Service
P. 0. Box 4079 University of Southern Mississippi
Gulfport, Miss. 39501 P. 0. Box 55, Southern Station
Van Payne Hattiesburg, Miss. 39401
.WLOX TV Dr. Billy Powell
DeBuys Road Marine Advisory Specialist
Biloxi, Miss. 3.9533 Alabama Sea Grant Advisory Service
800 Downtowner Boulevard, Suite 104
Charles Pearson, Jr. Mobile, Alabama 36600
Harrison County Development
Commission William C. Rhodes
P. 0. Box 569 State Senator
Gulfport, Miss. 39501 P. 0. Box 805
Pascagoula, Miss. 39567
Don Penny
Ocean Springs Planning Alan Robinson
Commission National Park Service
1207 Lancelot Lane NASA--NSTL
Ocean Springs, Miss. 39564 Bay St. Louis, Miss. 39520

Bob Perry, Senate Pro Tempore W. Dayton Robinson, Chairman
Mississippi State Senate Pass Christian Planning Commission
The Capitol 120 Wisteria Drive
Jackson, Miss. 39205 Pass Christian, Miss. 39571

Kenneth P. Phillips, Director Richard Roe
Jackson County Emergency Services National Marine Fisheries Service
P. 0. Box 998 P. 0. Drawer 1207
Pascagoula, Miss. 39567 Pascagoula, Miss. 39567

Matre Pitalo Dr. James B. Rucker
Harrison County Development Executive Director
Commission Mississippi Marine Resources Council
P. 0. Box 569 P. 0. Box 497
Gulfport, Miss. 39501 Long Beach, Miss. 39560

Richard W. Post Dr. Lyle S. St. Amant
Planning Director Assistant Director
Gulfport City Planning Commission Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries
P. 0. Box 1780 Commission
Gulfport, Miss. 39501 400 Royal Street
New Orleans, La. 70130

-136-

Dr. Joseph Sam William G. Simpson
Dean of the Graduate School Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator
University of Mississippi James Eastland
University, Miss. 38677 2241 Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Mayor Steve Saucier
W 200 West Scenic Drive David A. Singletary
Pass Christian, Miss. 39571 Assistant Director, Planning and
Relocation
Luther M. Scarborough, Secretary Department of Housing and Urban
Harrison County Development Development
Commission 101-C Third Floor, Jackson Mall
P. 0. Box 569 300 Woodrow Wilson, West
Gulfport, Miss. 39501 Jackson, Miss. 39213

Shellene Scarbrough Shirley H. Smith
Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant District Conservationist
Consortium Soil Conservation Service
P. 0. Drawer AG P. 0. Box 657
Ocean Springs, Miss. 39564 Gulfport, Miss. 39501

Aaron R. Schwartz Graham F. Somerville
State Senator, State of Texas Manager, Process Engineering
Room 12 9 B Standard Oil Company
State Capitol P. 0. Box 1300
Austin,- Texas 78711 Pascagoula, Miss. 39567

Joe E. Seward Michael Spryn
Coordinator of Publications and Harrison County Parkway Commission
Special Projects 2944 West Beach
Mis sis sippi -Alabama Sea Grant Biloxi, Miss. 39531
Consortium
P. 0. Drawer AG Edwin Stebbins, President
Ocean Springs, Miss. 39564 Gulfport Area Chamber of Commerce
P. 0. Box Z218, Evergreen Station
Karl Simmons Gulfport, Miss. 39501
Ocean Springs Planning Commission
Z02 Biddix Mayor Tom Stennis
Ocean Springs, Miss. 39564 City Hall
Ocean Springs, Miss, 39564
James Simpson
Mississippi House of Representatives
116 Marcie Drive
Pass Christian, Miss. 39571

Richard A. Stokes Barbara Teters
Park Manager Professor and Head of Department
National Park Service of Political Science
P. 0. Box T Mississippi State University
Ocean Springs, Miss. 39564 Mississippi State, Miss. 3976Z

Ben H. Stone Shelby F. Thames, Dean
State Senator, State of Mississippi College of Science and Technology
Mississippi Marine Resources University of Southern Mississippi
Council Southern Station, Box 5165
P. 0. Drawer H Hattiesburg, Miss. 39401
Gulfport, Miss. 39501
Jeanette Tootle
Colonel Howard L. Strohecker Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant
Deputy Division Engineer, LMVD C ons o rtium
U, S. Army Engineer Division, P. 0. Drawer AG
Lower Mississippi Valley Ocean Springs, Miss. 39564
Vicksburg, Miss. 39180
Dr. R. T. van Aller
Richard Sussman Dean of the Graduate School
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation University of Southern Mississippi
148 Cain Street Southern Station, Box 24
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Hattiesburg, Miss. 39401

Nancy Swogger Wayne Vance
Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant University of Mississippi
Consortium Box 6172
P. 0. Drawer AG University, Miss. 38677
Ocean Springs, Miss. 39564
Dr. C. David Veal
Han Tai Sea Grant Advisory Specialist
Manager, Pesticide Monitoring Sea Grant Advisory Service
Laboratory Box 4557
Environmental Protection Agency Biloxi, Miss. 39531
Building 1105, Mississippi Test
Facility Dr. Robert W. Wales
Bay St. Louis, Miss. 39520 Assistant Professor of Geography
University of Southern Mississippi
J. E. Thomas, Director Southern Station, Box 37Z
Institute of Engineering Technology Hattiesburg, Miss. 39401
Mississippi State University
Drawer GL
Mississippi State, Miss. 39762

-138-

Governor William L. Waller
Governor of Mississippi
The State Capitol
Jackson, Miss. 39205

Gene Warr
Biloxi Planning Commission
407 Evergreen Lane
Biloxi, Miss. 39531

Roland Weeks, President and
General Manager
Gulf Publishing Co., Inc.
DeBuys Road
Gulfport, Miss, 39501

Dr. D. C. Williams, Director
Bureau of Business Research
University of Southern Mississippi
Southern Station, Box 94
Hattiesburg, Miss. 39401

Roy C. Williams, Chairman
Pascagoula Planning Board
3112 Canty Street
Pascagoula, Miss. 39567

David R. Worley
Coastal Planner
Florida Coastal Coordinating
Council
309 Office Plaza Drive
Tallahassee, Fla. 32301

-139-

MEMBERS OF THE MISSISSIPPI

MARINE RESOURCES COUNCIL

William L. Waller, Chairman
Donald J. Cuevas, Vice Chairman
Gerald Blessey
Jerry J. Bodin
Bobby E. Craven, Ed. D.
Alfred F. Dantzler
William J. Demoran
Tommy A. Gollott
Gordon W. Gulmon
Harold D. Howse, Ph. D.
Earl Koskela
Bruce W. Mattox, Ph. D@
William C. Rhodes
Robert L. Robinson, Ph. D.
H. Hardin Shattuck
Ben H. Stone
E. E. Thrash, Ph. D.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Jackson M. Balch
Joseph V. Colson
Earl Evans, Jr.
Paul Fugate
J@ K. Gresham
Charles Lyles
William H. Moore
John T. O'Keefe
J. E. Thomas
Sidney D. Upham, Ph.D.
Clyde E. Wi'-scn
Robert Woodmansee, Ph.D.

3 6668 00001 8905