Assateague Island Administrative History

Congress Has a Better Idea

And so it came to pass that on April 4, 1974, new legislation was introduced by Senators Charles McC. Mathias, Jr., and J. Glenn Beall, Jr., of Maryland, Representative Robert E. Bauman of Maryland, and Representative Downing of Virginia to repeal sections 7 and 9 (mandating the concessions developments and the road respectively) of Public Law 89—195, the seashore authorization. [27] These bills died in the 93rd Congress but were reintroduced the following year as S. 82 (Mathias—Beall), H.R. 241 [28] (Downing), and H.R. 7407 (Bauman). The Marylanders' bills additionally authorized Federal compensation to Worcester County for taxes lost from the repeal of Section 7. Representative Downing's bill included authority for the Secretary of the Interior to undertake "a comprehensive plan for the lands and waters adjacent or related to the seashore" and to provide a public transportation system for visitors to the Virginia portion. It further directed that "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal loan, grant, license, or other form of assistance for any project which, in the opinion of the Secretary, would significantly affect the administration, use, and environmental quality of the seashore shall be made, issued, or approved by the head of any Federal agency without the concurrence of the Secretary unless such project is consistent with the plan developed pursuant to this section."

Assistant Secretary Nathaniel P. Reed supported the thrust of the Senate bill in a May 9, 1975, letter to the Senate Interior Committee that characterized Assateague and similar barrier islands as "mobile resources." "Contrary to the belief of many," he wrote, "these islands are not being washed away but rather are moving landward by the very forces which were fundamental in their origin, namely wind and water. It would be folly to attempt to halt their migration. Consequently, the construction of permanent facilities which parallel the shoreline...would not be in the interest of sound resource management for the national seashore." He recommended a substitute for S. 82 that included its repeal provisions but deleted its specific reimbursement authorization for Worcester County; instead, a comprehensive plan would explore the development of taxable services on the mainland. The Interior substitute also contained the secretarial concurrence provision in the Downing bill and the final $1,350,000 increase in Assateague's land authorization ceiling. [29]

Three days later the Interior Committee's Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation held its hearing on the Assateague proposal. Senator Mathias testified on behalf of S. 82, noting that without repeal of section 7 and provision for reimbursement of the county, "environmentally destructive development could occur with no tax revenues raised to compensate." Of road mandate in section 9 he said, "Here again is an idea which has not stood the test of time. I have heard Assateague described as 'a barren place, swept by wind and sun, its solitude broken only by the shrill cry of wheeling gulls and the metronome boom of the surf.' This hardly the sort of resource that can stand the intrusion of a public road." [30]

Conservation group witnesses strongly backed the repeal provisions but generally sided with Interior against compensation for Worcester County. "In our opinion," a Wilderness Society spokesman testified, "this section could set a thoroughly undesirable precedent by giving legal respectability to the idea that a public body or private person may file claim against the Federal Government for loss of potential benefits which it envisions might accrue to it in consequence of certain plans which the Government may have had at one time." T. Destry Jarvis of the National Parks and Conservation Association (formerly National Parks Association), and vice chairman of the Committee to Preserve Assateague, suggested that with the possibility of competition from island concessions removed, the development of taxpaying visitor facilities off the island would be sufficiently stimulated. Judith Johnson urged that in addition to repealing its development mandates, the Congress amend the 1965 law's language proclaiming the recreational emphasis of the seashore. [31]

On June 2 the Senate committee reported S. 82 amended in accordance with the Interior substitute. The reported bill passed the full Senate two days later and was referred to the House. [32]

There matters moved more slowly. Representative Bauman, now speaking for Worcester County in Congress, expressed several concerns in a September meeting with NPS Legislation Division personnel. He wanted the comprehensive plan in the Senate—passed bill referred to the congressional committees before implementation, as his bill provided. James M. Lambe, the division chief, said the Service would have no objection. Bauman wanted the proposed designation of a wilderness area at Assateague deferred until the plan was completed; Lambe responded that the matter was in the hands of Congress and that the Service would not oppose deferral. Bauman was also reluctant to accept the provision requiring Interior concurrence in other Federal agency actions affecting Assateague, which could hold up coastal zone management programs, use of the outer continental shelf, inland waterway development, local planning and zoning affected by federally funded sewage treatment projects, and expansion of the Ocean City airport. [33]

The House Interior Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation heard testimony on the Assateague bills on February 20, 1976. Park Service Director Gary Everhardt recommended that the Downing bill be amended to conform to the Senate—passed bill, which included the increased land acquisition ceiling. Representative Bauman appeared on behalf of his bill, arguing for its requirement that the comprehensive seashore plan specifically consider compensation for Worcester County: "I am not under an illusion what [Interior's] recommendation will be, but it will at least force them to address what was promised to the people of the area. He denounced the broad concurrence empowerment in the Downing and Senate bills: "I can see the Secretary possibly vetoing the inland waterway which the Corps of Engineers is working on right nearby, a dredging project at the Ocean City inlet, and so forth." Mark O. Pilchard, president of the Worcester County Commissioners, spoke against all bills because none guaranteed compensation for lost tax revenues. Representative Roy A. Taylor, the subcommittee chairman, was unsympathetic to the county position, stating his belief that the establishment of national parklands customarily stimulated sufficient adjacent development to more than offset revenue losses from the Federal land acquisition. Other committee members noted that Worcester County already had Ocean City for a tax base, and that the county had failed to control its unaesthetic aspects. [34]

The consensus of the House committee was incorporated in a new bill, H.R. 13713, introduced May 11 by Representative Taylor with the cosponsorship of Representative Bauman and others. Reported by the committee four days later, it provided for repeal of sections 7 and 9 and a comprehensive plan to be submitted to the congressional committees within two years including recommendations for compensation to Worcester County. Instead of requiring Interior concurrence in other agencies' undertakings, it would allow such actions to proceed after "consultation with the Secretary and full consideration of his views." H.R. 13713 passed the House on June 8, whereupon it went to the Senate and its Interior committee. [35]

The Park Service recommended that the Interior Department express no objection to Senate passage of H.R. 13713 in lieu of S. 82. Foreseeing that other agencies would appeal to the President and Congress if the concurrence requirement were retained and the Secretary vetoed their projects, the Service had come to believe that "the provision in H.R. 13713 for consultation will afford adequate consideration of the Department's concerns regarding the undertaking of any such project, and thus avoid the difficulties of appeals." The Department, however, advised the Senate committee to restore the S. 82 language. It did so, and on August 26 the Senate passed the omnibus H.R. 13713 with the Assateague provisions it had originally voted. [36]

The possibility of an impasse resulting in no Assateague legislation was broken only in the closing days of the session as Congress hastened to adjourn for the fall election campaign. On September 29 the House concurred in the Senate amendments to H.R. 13713 but with additional amendments, most notably returning from "concurrence" to "consultation" with a specified 30—day period for the Secretary to comment on other Federal actions. It did not restore the language addressing possible compensation for Worcester County, and Representative Bauman, an expert parliamentarian adept at delaying the legislative process when it suited his purposes, expressed his displeasure. Judith Johnson of the Committee to Preserve Assateague lobbied diligently to reconcile the differences. Finally on the last day of the 94th Congress, both houses agreed to and passed the bill as last amended by the House. It received the President's approval October 21. [37] (The Assateague provisions of the act are reproduced in full in the appendix.)

Thus it was that 11 years and one month after Assateague Island National Seashore was legally inaugurated, its planning and development mandates were so fundamentally transformed as to render it "born again." The change of direction long accepted in practice had become a matter of law, and the law now required the charting of a new course for the seashore. The story of the new planning effort, completed only as this is being written, will be told in the final chapter.