Coastal Zone Management

Coastal Zone Management

Question 1: South Carolina’s Coastal Zone Management Act
The provisions of Coastal zone management act made South Carolina the fastest state to get started. This was due to the six provisions of the coastal zone management act that apparently gave guidelines on the proper methods of protecting and conserving the coastal zones. Besides, it ensured that the coastal natural resources were put under strict protection and conservation. This also led to a balanced ecological conservation while at the same time allowing development.
Discussion
The provisions of the South Carolina’s Coastal Zone Management Act (1977) were put in force when the Congress gave a lot of support to the coordination of the land use process. This was meant to see management of natural resource while at the same time giving an opportunity for the coastal zone to undergo wise development. The main provisions of the CZMA are to declare the policy that will identify the objectives of CZMA. Also, the CZMA provides for granting authority to participants who would like to establish projects without specific elements. Also, the CZMA provides for the manner of identifying the significant coastal resources that will be matched with grants given to participants. Moreover, the CZMA provides authority to the federal provisions for consistency, thus enabling participants meet the requirements of federal actions. Other provisions of CZMA were to provide funds for loans and an enhancement grant fund for a coastal zone with nine segments. Finally, the CZMA constituted a Research Reserve System for the National Estuarine.
The famous legal battle fought by South Carolina on the regulation of the land use zone was the Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 500 US 1003 of the year 1992. In this case, the US Supreme Court established the procedure for determining whether a regulatory action was a measure of a regulatory testing and thus calls for compensation. The plaintiff was David H. Lucas, a developer of two beachfront located south of Carolina in palms. The coastal council of South Carolina was the defendant and was charged with the responsibility of giving permits to land use at the beachfront. Despite Lucas owning the lots of lands, the coastal zone management act that was in force in South Carolina barred him from erecting any structure. Lucas filed a case arguing that this restriction amounted to taking on private property without proper compensation (Percival, Miller, Schroeder, & Leape. 2000).
The lower courts ruled in his favour, but the Supreme Court overturned the ruling in favour of the South Carolina coastal council. The efforts by Lucas to have the decision by US Supreme Court reversed and declaration of the Beachfront Management Act an undertaking was not successful. The legality of the case was that the police power had the authority to determine the lawfulness of the beachfront Management Act (Pickering & Owen, 1997.).
The final outcome of the plaintiff was that any regulation aimed at barring the owner of a piece of land an economical use of the land amounts to a taking subject to the use being part of the title at a prior stage. Thus, the plaintiff was granted a decree to be heard under the law of nuisance. The plaintiff was given a cause remand to determine the possibility of the regulation being enacted under the law of nuisance (Underwood, 2001)
In conclusion, the coastal zone management act was successfully implemented in South Carolina making it the fastest growing state. In fact, it became a model for the implementation of the coastal zone management Act leading to a balance ecological conservation and protection of the coastal zone. The legal battle between the South Carolina Council and Lucas marked the beginning of the implementation of land use in the coastal zone. However, the outcome made it a more challenging action for the Council, in implementing the coastal zone management act.

Question 2: California’s coastal zone management program
The Carolina program for the coastal zone management has focused majorly on aesthetics. This effort can be summarized as a way of ensuring that the California coastal zone is properly managed in agreement with the aesthetic requirements of the members of the public. The impact of this to the aesthetic of the area is the development of the coastal zone in a balanced manner that does not interfere with the natural resources or the requirements of the residents of California.
The coastal zone management program of California proved to be the most successful in giving rise to aesthetic beauty. The anesthetic zones created were California, America Samoa and the Alabama-Alaska. This gave rise to the potential visibility of the coastal zone making it a distinct area for important natural resources (Davies, 1996). Besides, the department of parks created plans that fostered recreation and preservation of the aesthetics of California. There was also a three stages process that brought in the idea of build out and a clear view of operations (Baird, 1999). Besides, the California coastal zone act gave an opportunity for the balanced ecosystem by providing a permanent protection to scenic and natural resources. This is because it provides vital resources to the residents of California (Marriott, 1997).
The success of the efforts made by California Coastal Zone Management program was controversial in the manner in which it proposed the development of the coastal zones. In as much as it gave rise to the most admirable aesthetic of the coastal zone, it failed to curb the competition between the aim of protecting and conserving natural resources and the development of property along the coastal zones. Besides, the coastal zone management of California did not implement all the provisions of the CZMA. This made the California coastal zone management act have a lot of controversies (Warren, 2003).
The current policy in California is documented in the chapter three policies and provides for a permanent solution in protecting scenic and natural resources making it a paramount requirement for the residents of the nation and the state (Golley, 1998). Also, the current policy aims at promoting health, safety and welfare of members of the public together with their properties. Similarly, the policy currently provides for the protection of marine fisheries, wildlife and any natural resource found in the ocean (Clifford, 1998). This policy also aims at providing preventing deterioration of natural resources and wildlife by ensuring an ecological balance in the coastal zone. Moreover, the current policy has provided for development use through a carefully planned and consistent with economic well-being of state residents. This has led to a more developed coastal zone (Anderson, Mandelker, & Tarlock, 1999).
In conclusion, the coastal zone management program as implemented in California has given more priority to aesthetic value. This has led to improved conditions of the resident of the national government and the state. Besides, the aesthetic adherence has led to improved protection and conservation of the natural resources in the coastal zone.

References
Anderson, F. R., Mandelker, D. R., & Tarlock, A. D. (1999). Environmental protection: Law and
policy. Boston: Little, Brown.
Baird, C. (1999). Environmental chemistry. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Davies, J. C. (1996). Comparing environmental risks: Tools for setting government priorities.
Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Golley, F. B. (1998). A primer for environmental literacy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Marriott, B. B. (1997). Practical guide to environmental impact assessment. New York:
McGraw-Hill. Percival, R. V. (2000). Environmental regulation: Law, science, and policy
(3rd edition). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
Pickering, K.T & Owen, L.A (1997). An introduction to global environmental issues (2nd
edition). London: Routledge.
Underwood, L. (2001). Case studies in environmental science (2nd edition). Fort Worth, TX:
Harcourt College Publishers.