The Governance Working Group examined the current roles of Federal, State and local governments as they related to the oceans. The findings and recommendations of the Working Group were reported to the full Commission as the basis for discussion and possible action.

Working Group Members

Mr. William D. Ruckelshaus, Chairman
Mrs. Lillian Borrone
Mr. Lawrence R. Dickerson
Professor Marc J. Hershman
Mr. Christopher Koch
Dr. Andrew A. Rosenberg
Admiral James D. Watkins, USN (Ret.)

Issues (subject to revision)

The Working Group intends to examine the following general areas for their relevance to governance, recognizing that the list is preliminary, may need to be expanded, and will be coordinated with the other Working Groups.

Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone governance regimes.

Improved coordination among Federal bodies with direct and indirect ocean responsibilities.

Federalism: Managing the intersection of Federal, State, and local governments.

Place-based collaborative decision processes involving stakeholders.

International leadership by the U.S. in marine affairs, including ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention.

Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone governance regimes.

The U.S. has declared the area between the coastline and seaward 12 miles as our territorial sea and, therefore, sovereign territory. Between zero and three miles, jurisdiction is vested in the coastal state, but federal interests beyond three miles are established only through specific laws dealing with fisheries, mineral development and water quality. There is no general law or governance regime for this area.

In 1983, the U.S. proclaimed an Exclusive Economic Zone contiguous to the territorial sea and extending seaward to 200 nautical miles from the baseline. Rights and responsibilities exercised by the U.S. in this zone are authorized through laws dealing with specific resources only. There is no general law asserting broad control over this vast offshore area (in which there are reserved international rights) in the same way that we have asserted responsibility for onshore public lands (e.g., national forests, grazing lands, etc.). Such a law could provide the vehicle for establishing broad goals, coordinating mechanisms, research/mapping tasks and other functions.

(top)

Improved coordination among Federal bodies with direct and indirect ocean responsibilities.

In recent years, there has been a continuous demand for better coordination of coastal and marine government programs and services to avoid conflicts, redundancies and costs. Improved integration can occur in a variety of ways ranging from improved communication to agency mergers with many graations along the way. In the late 1960’s, the U.S. had a marine council. In more recent times, the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP) was established. At the state level, there are examples of coastal and marine coordinating programs with varied success. Consideration should be given to the potential for a new coordinating body and the benefits and costs that would result.

Federalism: Managing the intersection of Federal, State and local governments.

Federalism issues permeate virtually every aspect of coastal and marine affairs. All federalism issues have legal, financial and political dimensions that reflect the U.S. system of governance. Federalism issues vary depending on the topic being considered and the applicable authorizing legislation. There are examples of management tools that have improved federal-state relations, such as the Coastal Zone Management Act. More attention needs to be given to examples of federal-state partnerships and collaborations that have worked and the reasons for success.

Place-based collaborative decision processes involving stakeholders.

The U.S. governance structure is complex and normally involves many agencies with differing mandates and time schedules. Additionally, individuals are accorded considerable access to the administrative process and the judiciary processes, and their civil liberties and property rights are carefully protected. Because the hurdles to overcome in any decision process can be daunting, various forms of collaborative decision processes among stakeholders have evolved. There is considerable experience in the use of these processes, and the potential is there for more extensive use. Greater institutionalization of the methods and techniques may be warranted, as well as greater application of the processes designed to manage and protect the coastal and marine environments.

International leadership by the U.S. in marine affairs, including ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention.

In addition to the areas for inquiry noted above, there are more specific problems that should be examined. Without providing an exhaustive list, these include:

• Reducing ocean pollution;
• Managing coastal zone development;
• Improving living resources management;
• Planning offshore oil and gas development; and
• Protecting and restoring urban harbors.

(top)