PAGENO="0001" L Congress Session MJVEITTEE PEtINT 7Z~t,2o9°~ NATIONAL LAND USE POLICY BACKGROUND PAPERS ON PAST AND PENIMNG LEGISLATION AND THE ROLES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, CONGRESS, AND THE STATES IN LAND USE POLICY AND PLANNING COMPILED AT THE REQUEST OF SENATOR HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE w APRIL 1972 Printed for the use of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs U.S~ GOVERNMENT PRINTIISrG OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1912 S ~ , PAGENO="0002" JsaaT T. VIIRRLIIR, Staff Director WILLIAM J. VAN Nsss, Ch,ief Counsel DANIEL A. DREYFUS, Professional Staff Member STEVEN P. QUAItLES, Special Counsel CHARLES Coon, Minority Counsel (II) CO~~{MITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, C!uzirma4s CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New Mexico GORDON ALLOTT, Colorado ALAN BIBLE, Nevada LEN B. JORDAN, Idaho FRANK CHURCH, Idaho PAUL J. FANNIN, Arisona FRANK E. MOSS, Utah CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota MARK 0. HATFIELD, Oregon GEORGE McGOVERN, South Dakota HENRY BELLMON, Oklahoma LEE METCALF, Montana JAMES L. BUCKLEY, New York MIKE GRAVEL, Alaska PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS Memorandum of the chairman I. Introduction : The Land Use Orisis from a National Perspective Excerpts frotu a speech by Senator Henry M. Jackson Developmental and social pressures Land use and environment A new policy and a new ~ Excerpts from "Guidelines : State Land Use Policy Act" prepared by the Council on Environmental Quality___~________________ Background of State involvement in land use control ______ The need to reexamine land use planning and regulation__~__ II. The Congress and land use ~ A. The national land use policy proposals______________________ 1. Legislative background 2. Written and chart-form comparisons 3. A debate by the sponsors of the proposals________________ "Planning the second America" "On the States' role in planning the second America"__ "Senator Jackson on the bill for a land use policy"___ "Secretary of the Interior on the land use policy"____ 4. A summary of the hearings Policy position of the National Governor's Con-__ ference Public versus private decisionmaking__~____________ State and local concerns versus national goals and guidelines Determining proper roles for State, regional, and local governments Determining the proper roles of State and Federal Governments Meshing the planning for Federal and non-Federal lands Resource management and industry problems Preserving prime agricultural land Energy production and land use____________________ Multiple use __________________________________ Relationships between land and water Meeting the needs of economic expansion____________ Removing unnecessary constraints on land develop- ment Linking land use planning to environmental controls__ Housing and social needs New towns Managing and exchanging information B. Past and pending land use legislation and committees' inns- dictions as they relate to land use policy_____________________ 1. A brief chronology of major legislation, statements, and actions pertinent to land use policy 2. Congressional committees' jurisdictions 3. Bills in the 91st Congress pertinent to land use policy_____ 4. Selected bills pertinent to land use policy introduced in the 92d Congress, 1st session :iii. The executive branch and land use policy: Federal programs and Federal organization as they relate to land use policy__________________________________________________ IV. The States and land use policy: Recent `l~'velopments Appendix A-Recent writings on land use~_____________________________ Appendix B-Recent hearings on legislation and issues Appendix C-The national land use policy proposals S. 632_____________________________________________ S. 992____________________________________________ Amendment to S. 992____~_______~________________ Summaries of 5. 2554, 5. 3175, and S. 3177____________ (III) page 1 8 3 3 4 6 8 8 10 13 15 15 15 21 21 22 24 25 27 28 29 29 30 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 35 3G 37 37 39 39 53 59 77 79 95 103 123 132 135 191 206 211 PAGENO="0004" PAGENO="0005" MEMORANDUM OF THE ChAIRMAN To Members of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affair8: Environmental crises, energy crises, indeed most of the domestic crises with which the media confront us, can be traced to decisions as to how our land is used. This lends emphasis to the statements of numerous public officials and concerned citizens who maintain that too many land use decisions of wide public concern are being made on the basis of expediency, tradition, short-term economic considerations, and other factors frequently unrelated or contradictory to the real concerns of sound land use policy. The rapid and continued growth of the Na- tion's population, expanding urban development, proliferating trans- portation systems, large-scale industrial and economic growth, con- flicts in patterns of land use, fragmentation of governmental entities exercising land use planning powers, and the increased size, scale, and impact of private actions, have today created what many Americans perceive to be a national land use crisis. That such a perception is widely shared in the Federal Govern- ment-in both the legislative and executive branches-is demonstrated by the more than two hundred land use policy measures before Con- gress. Of particular importance are two bills to establish a national land use policy and to assist the States to develop and implement land use programs : S. 632 was first introduced by me in January 1970 and was reintroduced the following year ; S. 992, the Administration's pro- posal, was introduced in February 1971. These two proposals, pending before the two Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs, can be regarded as "umbrella" bills to encourage the establishment of the decisionmaking framework and to assist the developm £ ~ ~1 pertise and collection of data necessary to insure the the numerous other land use proposals now before Congress-s the power plant siting, the surface mining, and the coastal zOnI ~ ~ ~ ~ agement bills. ~ ~ .,. ~ *2 In considering the National Land Use Policy bills, various mem- ~ ~ ~ bers of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs have requested preparation of informational papers by committee ~ members and by the Congressional Research Service. In the e~ tion that these papers are of interest to the entire Co others as well, I have asked Wallace Bowman, Assistant C~. vironmental Policy Division of the Congressional Research and Steven P. Quarles, Special Counsel to the Committee, to as themin Committee Print form. ~ The Print is divided into four sections The first section is to give the reader insight into how the Federal Government-i the legislative and executive branches-perceives the land use c The second section, "The Congress and Land an in depth analysis of the two land use proposals-L - and a summary of the hearings on the proposals. Briefly discus~ the jurisdictions of Congressional committees as they relate to I (1) PAGENO="0006" 2 use policy bills before Congress, and nt land use legislation. 1 tnization as it re- use are sectio: ~urth seci Loll, nov~ legislation is noted for the a review of recent reports on State land use activities. ~, a list of recent writings compiled from the Congressional Service's computer, a list of hearings on land u~e legislation 1 Congress, 1st Session, the texts of S. 632 and 5. 992, and ~ies of the Other National Land TJse Policy proposals are found ~e appendix. HENRY M. JACKSON, Caii'man. PAGENO="0007" I. INTRODUCTION: THE LAND USE CRISIS FROM A NATIONAL PRESPECTIVE As Senator Henry M. Jackson noted in his Memorandum, many Americans today believe that our Nation is faced with a land use crisis of major proportions. The large number of legislative proposals pending before Congress suggests that the Federal Government shares this belief. The following excerpts from a speech by Senator Jackson and a memorandum prepared by the Administration indicate the views of the sponsors of the two principal land use proposais con- cerning the origin and effects of the land use crisis and the need for land use legislation. (Excerpts from a September 1970 &peech by Senator Henry M. Jackson, Chairman of the Senate Com~mittee on Interior and Ineular Affairs): * * * For nearly three centuries the American people moved ever westward seeking land and opportunity, seeking a better place to live, to work and to play. Rapid urbanization along the Pacific coast testi- fies to the end of this era of abundant and open land. No longer will there always be more land over the next rise. Yet the "pioneer land ethic" remains with its commonly accepted principle that ownership of the land carries with it the right to do with the land as one pleases- to buy and sell, to use and deplete. Although the notion of unlimited land may have lost acceptance, the tendency to view land in monetary and ownership terms continues. Will Rogers succinctly, albeit unwittingly, described our present per- ception of land when he admonished us to : "Buy land ; they ain't mak- ing any more of it." We must modify further our concept of land. We must treat land not as a commodity to be consumed or expended but as a valuable finite resource to be husbanded. DEVELOPMENTAL AND SOCIAL PRESSURES ~ * * * Those who tell us we have no land crisis-that this natural resource is not diminishing-always point to the rural-urban migra- tion. They produce statistics which show a population reduction in a number of rural counties and cite population projections which place an ever larger percentage of the American people on a smaller per- centage of the land. Yet, I submit, this crowding is deceptive and the land use patterns which are evolving from this urbanization process are causing the greatest damage to our land. Our urban-suburban dwellers, these (3) PAGENO="0008" owa [use p~ yofour'i mmod urban densities, t.~ as across i areas of land-idling ~ar too much of it. ~ "territorial imperative" practiced by the vast ~OO local governments with zoning powers has ~ and potential population densities. For Lty in New York, moving steadily over the ore and more restrictive zoning has nearly y-reducing it from 3.2 million in 1952 ;aneously expanding an additional ere restrictive l~nd use regulations and decisions have not to urban sprawl, the automobile and the modern high . system have. This can be seen in comparisons of the ~-- --- -~ -- ~ :i of the growth predated the massive use of the and ~ cities which experienced rapid expansion in the of freeways and long distance commuting. For example, ~s, the freeway city, has somewhat less than one-third fewer re mile than New York City - -- ~-1--~ Ly in the midst of increasing urbanization is ., FL III ~ rapid consumption of land. Another major uence is speculation in land on the urban fringe. Nationally, of ~ae 17 million acres which have been withdrawn from any other Only about 11 million acres are actually in urban cnaining 6 million acres is idle and unproductive specui -speculation which pays, as, over the decade raw land prices increased at an average annual rate f the wholesale commodity price index and nearly r prices. Th~ high cost of land makes it increas- ~ or engage in other non-intensive land uses near sotha~ problems inherent in a land use system which maximizes )rices and minimizes urban population densities are well-known ~- . ~ ~ . ` ~ cities are becoming bedroom communities _~j man -- - :r, and the black who must commute to ax-base-~ I suburbs. In town after town, residents b only have outsiders been excluded, but also their own ~ ~ their elderly parents, and local civil servants. In the k area, the National Council Against Discrimination in found that 80% of the area's families are now priced out of housing market entirely. Lbility of the vast majority of Americans to live in a place of -a place with quality environmental and service amen- :ly to most of our social ills-violence, de- schooling, and social and economic ~ the central question-that of land PAGENO="0009" and unproductive land associated with urban vvi ~ bute to our economic growth or to the ameliora- tion of social problems, but it fails, as well, to satisfy our aesthetic needs. The kind of land we find ugliest is not that which is overused but that which is underused or largely vacant : worked-out gravel pits; vacant lots ; rubbish-strewn fields festooned with weeds, billboards and high tension lines ; and the seas of asphalt around suburban shopping centers. Urban sprawl does not pause at the periphery of the ever-widening circle of land dedicated to or held for urban use. Urban dwellers today place dema~ids upon rural land miles and sometimes several states away from their homes. Los Angeles' power needs have brought air-polluting power plants and land-polluting strip mining to the Navajo and Hopi lands of Black Mesa in Arizona and New Mexico. Waste disposal problems have forced consideration of such solutions as the shipment of refuse by rail hundreds of miles beyond our cities' boundaries. And along our shores and in our mountains escape from the cities has be- come the unattainable goal of those who in seeking second homesites create second suburbias. Sobering statistics bespeak the future of our land under these eco~ nomic and social pressures : Over the next 30 years, these pressures will result in an additional 18 million acres or 28 thousand square miles of undeveloped land surrendered to urban use. Urban sprawl will consume an area of land approximately equal to all the urbanized land now within the 228 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas-' the equivalent of the total areas of the states of New Hampshire, Ver-' mont, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Each decade, new urban growth will absorb an area greater than the entire state of New Jersey. Twenty six million new housing units must be constructed by 1978, the equivalent of building 2'/2 cities the size of the San Francisco-Oaklai metropolitan area every year. In the next t~ ~i, new I voltage tr~tnsmission lines will consume three rights-of -way, while 225 new major electrical require some 140,000 acres of prime industrial now and the year 2000 we must build again upon our have built before. We must duplicate in three decades ~ us three centuries to construct-a new home, school, hospital, building for every one now in existence. LAND USE AND THE ENVIRONMENT * * * These pressures upon our land base could have a profou negative impact upon our environment Yet, on protection of our environment can and should be aided i consideration of land use in recent years we have made important progress toward introduc- ing environmental values into governmental decisions We have also PAGENO="0010" 6 initiated a number of action programs to deal with the problems which have been identified. We have not, however, fully developed institu- tional machinery and the specific laws and policies which are needed to do a comprehensive, coherent job of environmental management rather than merely to react to problems which already exist. Adoption of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, con- stituted a Congressional response to the need fOr a comprehensive policy and a new organizing concept for dealing with environmental problems. As the Act's author, I felt a national policy for the environ- ment was necessary to provide both a conceptual basis and legal sanc- tion for applying to environmental management the high level policy concern we apply to other areas of critical national importance. Over the last two years, the strength of that Act has been well established. We must, however, further enlarge the Federal Government's Ca- pacity to sort out environmental conflicts, to weigh alternatives, and to assess their costs and benefits, if we are to avoid the pitfalls of concentrating on ~ immediate, pressing problems-the environmental causes célèbres with which the media. daily confront us-to the ex- clusion of long-term policy considerations. It is, therefore, essential that we develop a framework within which the myriad proposal~ to use or consume natural resources can be balanced against one an- other and measured against the demands they collectively impose upon the environment. Put simply, we need a focal point upon which we can compare alternative proposals to achieve our goals. That focal point, I submit, should be the use of land. A NEW POLICY AND A NEW PLANNING * * * The crucial question is whether we are to allow rapid develop- ment, the irretrievable dedication of our land, to be done in accordance with the tenets of our traditional pioneer land ethic or whether we nrc Dared to demand that our land be managed and used to best meet ~ environmental and social requirements. ster wise land use patterns, we must adopt a National Land r~~7 This Policy must recognize that land use decisions are, , `-~ economic, social and environmental decisions-that the 0 which land is ~ put dictate the pace and shape of economic L~ the character and severity of social problems, and the extent ~ the environment is preserved or destroyed. With so much n choosing the use of land, fierce competition over the right hoose ultimately results. The National Land Use Policy must con- new procedures and machinery to lessen the conflicts, the wasteful ~e inefficient results which land use competition generates. t this competition from the adversary process to the plan- rocess. , January 1970, I introduced legislation to establish such a Na- 4 Land Use Policy. That measure was reported favorably by the i Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs too late in the igress to reach a floor vote. The following year it was reintro- ~J as S.. 632. (It has since been joined by an Administration pro- 3a1, S. `992, featured prominently in the President's February 8, 1971 to Congress on the environment.) I PAGENO="0011" 7 My bUl would establish forums a~id procedures to foster rational, consistent, long-term decision-making with the participation of citizens and experts alike. Most importantly these decisions would not be based upon emotion or preconceived ideas, but rather upon objective data and information and goals developed at the local and State levels. In short, these decisions would result from the planning process-not the oft- maligned and seldom effective traditional planning process but a new participatory process based upon adequate data and capable of implementation. For too long, land use decision-making has been conducted with- out data adequate to consider fully the decisions' potential impacts. Four years ago, Congress wrestled with the issue of whether dams should be constructed in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon. The de- cision was no. Now the Senate Interior Committee is holding a series of hearings on the Four Corners power question, considered by some ~o be an even greater threat to the environment. Of course, the issues inv?lved are much the same-growing West Coast energy needs and environmental protection-but in neither case have they been ad-. dressed properly, with sufficient data to identify the various options and their potential environmental and economic consequences. Other examples abound. Open spaces valuable for recreation, green- belts or just a break in the carpet of urbanization are succumbing to private development catering to the one-acre recreational homesite dreams of our nation's city-dwellers. Land uniquely suitable for cer- tam uses, such as major airports, is preempted for other uses which possess far less demanding criteria. And unwanted, but essential proj- ects, such as power plants, meet with wasteful delays and are finally sited in locations where resistance is least but without consideration for sound developmental and environmental needs. What planning we have accomplished has too often been single purpose planning which has failed to relate that purpose to a balanced range of national goals. For example, highway planners have slashed highways through parks where land is invaluable for recreation but cheap for roadbuilding ; carved up low income districts with knives of concrete-thus effectively destroying any sense of community ; and poured more highway lanes into cities already choking on automobile traffic and fumes. In addition, we have conducted too many of our programs and activ- ities in inexcusable ignorance of their often contradictory and delete- rious effects~ Illustrative of this was the Everglades Jetport con- troversy. In the Senate Interior Committee hearings in June 1969, three prestigious Federal agencies were displayed as blithely undertaking activities-flood control, airport development, and national park and recreation programs-in compliance with their mission-oriented guidelines but with little appreciation of the contradictory, self-de- feating, and environmentally destructive land use impacts of those activities. These are examples of the ill-effects which come from poor planning or no planning at all. My bill attempts to insure that our needs for proper planning are met. Furthermore, too many resplendently color-coded plans, single pur-s pose or not, have been left to collect dust on administrators' shelves. PAGENO="0012" S ientation and make cess. ---- [ the ~1other ~ intract~ ve voice c ~ ~ ~ I -- pra ~1 wisdom a capable of implementation, their ~ riowledge ~is gaps in the planners' data and information, and their berests diminish the tendency of planning to embody a single purpose. My bill would demand frequent and effective citizen partici- pation in all stages of the planning process. The challenge of planning for the future-the challenge of a better design for tomorrow-is awesome. This challenge cannot be met by good intentions or by assertions of concern. Nor can it be met by pas.. sage of a single piece of legislation, although such action would indeed serve as a good beginning. It will require major governmental reforms and effective citizen action. If we work together, we will preserve a healthy, liveable environment for our children and their children. I know of no finer legacy. (Excerpts from "Guidelines: State Land Use Policy Act" prepared ?~y t1~e Council on Environmental Quality, March 1972): 1~ACKGROt~ND OF STATE INVOLVEMENT IN LAND USE CONTROL Both major land use bills pending before the Congress would make States the major actors in dealing with important land use problems. Constitutionally, States have always possessed full authority to engage in land use planning and regulation. However, most States have dele- control over land use to their constituent local governments, ~ - ~: responsibility over land use problems beyond the vernments. ccotnplishing these delegations are nearly all modeled ;~ which were j pared by the U.S. Department of Corn- -. - -- ~1 :~::~1 to as the Standard City Planning En- ) and the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act ;PEA authorized cities to engage in planning and it -~- .1 acts: ~ organization and power of the plan commission, which Erected to prepare and adopt a "master plan"; ` , the content of the master plan for the physical develop- ment of the territory governed by those local governments the State authorized to plan; ~ ~ (3) provision for adoption by the governing body of a master *~ ~ street plan for the community and the control thereafter of pri- vate and public building within mapped but unopened streets; S (4) provision for approval by the plan commission, before approval by the governing body, of all public improvements `(legislative override of commission veto was provided); (5) control of private subdivision of land into building parcels and accompanying streets and other open spaces; PAGENO="0013" Act authQrized I ng State to contro ~ ~ ~ and premises ~ ~ ~ c___~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ --~ ~ was ~ _ ~orization given to a local government to ~ its territory into zones or districts with uniform regulation throughout the district but with different regulations for each district. The control was exercised through specification in the local ordinance of the authorized limit on size of a building parcel . on size, height, and placement of structures on a lot ; and through speci?1ca~ tion of the uses to which buildings and land in the district could be put. Flexibility or individualized treatment of a particular parcel was permitted by authorizing the local government to provide for a "board of adjustment" to make "special exceptions" to the terms of the ordinance and to authorize a "variance" from the terms of the ordinance where literal enforcement would result in unnecessary hardship. The existing laws in most States are closely based on these two models. Underlying the SPEA and SZEA are two important assump- tions: ( 1) The "owner" of land (private person or governmental agency) has the power to use or develop his land as he wishes except as specifically restricted in State and local legislation; (2) The public interest of the State lies in authorizing local government to control the development decisions of an owner of land within the borders of the local government. There was no affirmative authorization to an owner to undertake deyelopment not expressly prohibited by local ordinances, and there was no authority granted to a private person or governmental entity to acquire land by purchase or by eminent domain. The SPEA and SZEA and the State statutes modeled after them assume that the decision to acquire land for development and the decision to de- velop are made independently of the planning laws and that ths purpose of the local planning and zoning laws which they ituthor.. ize is to prohibit undesirable development, not to encourage desir- able development. Furthermore, as far as these enabling acts were concerned, pears to have been immaterial to the broader public interest ( State whether any local government actually enraged in r whether development actually took place in s * whether the plan, if any, produced by the local governn promoted the public interest of the local community, and ci the plan of the local government adversely affected the pul of a larger area such as the region or the State as a for which the local government could act under th were the full inventory of constitutionally permis promotion of health, safety, morals, and general purely local public interest was dominant. The models assumed a rigid pattern of land and urban deve ment. The local ordinances under the SZEA assumed that urposes- -but the PAGENO="0014" 10 place lot by lot on individual parcels. It was also ~ imed ~ the territorial boundaries of the city or other unit of urban government would more or less keep pace with the economic and social development of the urban community. The SPEA autho- rized the master plan to encompass territory beyond the boundaries of the planning government because it was likely that the territory would be annexed to the planning government in a short interval of time. A comment to the SZEA suggested that States might desire to permit local government to control land in the unincorporated terri- tory beyond its borders so that when the territory is annexed to the local government it would come into the jurisdiction with consistent land use controls. However, except for areas undergoing urbanization and ripe for annexation, little attention was paid to the huge areas of rural and natural lands. THE NEED TO REEXAMINE LAND USE PLANNING AND REGULATION LAWS Several studies in recent years have concurred in concluding that the existing approach to land use planning and regulation is made- quate. The unrestricted grant of power to the smallest unit of local government has produced in many States a distortion in metropolitan growth a lack of authority and planning interest in the major por- tions of non urban lands, and an incapacity to deal with regional prob- lems such as pollution, inadequate supply of decent housing, proper management of the environment, transportation and the like. This incapacity has been most apparent in the areas undergoing most in- tense development pressure-the metropolitan fringe. Major low density development such as industrial parks, residential subdivis- ions, regional shopping centers, and new communities which are springing up at the urban periphery pose serious problems of relating industry to housing of the work force and of relating growth gen- erally to a whole complex of urban public services such as schools, hospitals, neighborhood shopping centers, waste treatment facilities and services, and mass transit. The units of government which must deal with these issues are invariably too small, and sometimes too in~ experienced, to plan comprehensively for these matters. Fragmented localism which characterizes our land use control sys- tems in most States has proved inadequate to achieve important developmental objectives such as housing, just as it has failed to achieve a harmony of city design with the natural landscape, and to protect critical environmental areas such as coastal wetlands. The Douglas Commission, which focused primarily on the impediments to meeting the demand for housing, concluded that the difficulty small units of government have in acting in concert or in pursuing regional objectives seriously inhibits an orderly, equitable allocation of land resources (See Building the American City : Report of the National Commission on Urban Problems, 1969) . The National Estuarine Pol- lution Study and the National Estuarine Inventory, which were con- cerned with the conservation of coastal wetlands, likewise concluded that States should play a more significant role in conserving conser- vation resources such as wetlands which extend across local boundaries (Report of the Secretary of the Interior, Federal Water Quality Ad- PAGENO="0015" 1*1 ministration, 1970) Several reports of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Re'ations have called for more State ~ontro1 over ] land use. (See Urban and Rural America, ACIR, 1969) . There are three reasons why the unrestricted grant of power by a State to a relatively small unit of local government may no longer be adequate to deal with land use issues of greater than local impact. First, small units of government are inherently limited by the confines of their jurisdiction. Scenic or important natural areas are rarely viewed by a locality in terms of their regional importance. Even when one locality acts wisely to fit development to the capacity of the land, it may not be able to affect the adjoining town's land use control prac- tices. The limits of local jurisdiction are simply not adequate to en- compass regional ecological systems or economic areas without some policy guidance and control from larger units of government. Secondly, the inadequacy of local solutions to regional land use management problems derives from the dependency of many local gov- ernments upon development-related property tax revenuea The pow- erful economic incentive to develop at any price often conflicts with the long range interests of the region. American cities find it very difficult to act in concert in planning and controlling land use, partly because neighboring communities compete economically for tax-re- turning new development. Finally, it i~ the changing attitude about land in the United States which demands reform of our current approach to land use regula- tion. The incremental loss of wetlands to dredging and filling, the gradual destruction of scenic areas-all are now seen in the light of a limited resource. The myth of inexhaustible land resources is now confronting a growing public concern that our supply of land, particu- larly of ecologically significant and scenic land, is being rapidly lost. As a consequence of problems largely beyond the control of local governments, the current locally oriented land use regulatory sys- tem is doing very poorly at dealing with three kinds of issues: -protecting lands which serve vital natural or aesthetic purposes for a regional population; -accepting and siting development which the larger area may badly need but which may represent net tax costs or pose social problems to a local community; and -controlling growth which is induced by certain, magnetic cle- velopments on such a scale that it altogether changes the ground rules of the conventional planning and zoning game. PAGENO="0016" PAGENO="0017" II. THE CONGRESS AND LAND USE POLICY Land use policy is an issue of increasing importance in the Congress; of this there can be no doubt. In a report prepared by the Congres- sional Research Service for the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, there were found to be over 120 bills concerning land use policy before twelve committees in the 91st Congress. Today, in the 92nd Congress, that number has risen to over 200 measures in thir- teen committees. This section reviews Congress~ past and present role in land use policy. In the first part, emphasis is placed on the principal land use policy proposals-S. 632 and S. 922-and reiated measures to establIsh, a national land use policy and to assist the States to develop and im- plement State land use programs. Included in this section are the legis- lative background of these proposals, written and chart-form com- parisons of S. 632 and S. 992, a debate on planning concepts by the proposals' sponsors (a Washington Post editorial and letters to the editor from Senator Henry M. Jackson, Council on Environmental Quality Chairman Russell E. Train, and Interior Secretary Rogers C. B. Morton) , and a summary of the hearings on S. 632 and S. 992. In the second part, other past and pending land use legislation and committee jurisdictions as they relate to land use policy are reviewed. Included are a brief chronology of major legislation, statements, and actions pertinent to land use policy; a statement of Congressional Committees' jurisdictions as they relate to land use policy; and lists of bills on land use policy in the 91st Congress and of selected, significant land use proposals before the 92nd Congress. In the ap- pendix is a list of hearings held during the first session of the 92nd Con- gress on land-oriented legislation and issues the texts of S. 632 and 5. 992, and summaries of the other National Land Use Policy pro- posals. (13) 75-793----72-2 PAGENO="0018" p PAGENO="0019" A. THE NATIONAL LAND USE POLIOY PROPOSALS 1. LEGISLATIVE BACKGRO1JND The Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs has before it Several proposals to establish a National Land Use Policy and to encourage and assist the States to prepare and implement land use programs. The first bill proposing such a policy, S. 3354, was intro- duced in January 1970 by Senator Jackson. Four days of hearings were held, and in December 1970 the bill was reported favorably by the Committee. S. 3354 did not come to a vote before the end of the 91st Congress and the measure was reintroduced as S. 632 in January 1971. In his February 8, 1971 Message to Congress on the environment, President Nixon emphasized the need for better management of the Nation's land resources. S. 992 was introduced as part of the Presi- dent's package of environmental legislation for that year. Committee hearings on S. 632 and S. 992 were held on four occa- sions during May and June of 1971. In early September, at the direction of Chairman Jackson, the Sen~ ate Interior Committee staff prepared a Committee Print incorporat- ing features of both S. 632 and S. 992 and suggestions made by Corn- mittee ~ members and witnesses. An alternative Committee Print (No. 2) was prepared by minority staff. On September 21, 1971, Senator Mathias introduced S. 2554. In February 1972, S. 3175 (Senator Allott) and S. 3177 (Senators Jor- dan and Allott) and an Administration amendment to S. 992 were introduced. At the direction of the Chairman, and after discussions with repre- s~ntatives of the Council on Environmental Quality and the Depart- ment of the Interior, and with staff of other Senate Committees, In- terior Committee Staff prepared a third Committee Print early this March. As of publication date of this print, both the Senate and the House Interior Committees are considering the proposals in executive session. 2. WRITTEN AND CHART-FORM COMPARISONS The following comparison concentrates on S. 632 and S. 992. Ex- *cept for minor differences, S. 2554 can be considered to be similar to S. 632, and S. 3175 and S. 3177 similar to S. 992. (S. 3177 also con-~ tains, as a separate title, the provisions of S. 2450, the Public Land Policy Act proposed by Senators Allott and Jordan.) (Summaries of the differences between the provisions of S. 2554, S. 3175 and S. 3177, and the provisions of S. 632 and S. 992 are contained in Appendix (C, p. 211.) (15) PAGENO="0020" major objectives. In general: a have the police power and the Dflftl authority for planning and management of, non- ~, to take the initiative in developing land use programs more than local sigx~ificance; rovide Federal assistance to the States for. the staffing, data ad analysis, and planning which are necessary prerequisites t decisionmaking; encourage or require State land use controls to implement ~ad use programs; measure of coordination and compliance proved State land use programs; and review of the States' land use efforts as a ~ Progra~m.-S. 632 requires comprehensive cover- ii the ~ ~ land use program with the exception of Federal and, at the State's discretion, cities of a certain size ; whereas 2 would I ye the States focus on certain critical areas and uses: - A! ~ :nvironmental concern, key facilities, use or develop- - regional benefit, and large scale development. tent of State Progra~m.-Both bills contain guidelines for ;es. However, S. 632 includes a balanced set of economic, social, . ~l criteria of which the States must thke cognizance ~ their planning and places greater emphasis on the neces- [ng adequate data ; S. 992 possesses a more exhaustive list rmance guidelines, including responsibilities, powers, and ~ of implementation which the State must adopt. ~ementation of State Program.-Both bills provide for State ~ and implementation. (Delegation of planning and imple- 011 to localities is permitted and expected in S. 632 subject only ~ ~s ultimate responsibility for approval and coordination 5 and enforcement procedures, submission of a statewide [eral review, and consistency of that plan with the Act's -~ ~dition to direct State planning and implementation, -~s two other alternative, but not mutually exclu- control : judicial enforcement and/or State ative review of local planning, actions, and enforcement ac- ~ ) State-established criteria and standards. ~ of FederaZ Aut1ao~ity.-Federal jurisdiction differs con- ly as well as physically. S. 992 adopts a line agency approach g authority in the Secretary of the Interior with advice from etary of Housing and Urban Development concerning key -~l development of regional benefit, and large scale 63~ favors an interagency approach through the ex- grading of the Water Resources Council, renamed the )duce I furthei grants. ive differences in these two legislative pro- PAGENO="0021" 1.7 ~view.-In S. 992 approval or disapproval of a State e by the Secretary of the Interior with the advice of the ~ ~-~J ~TIb on certain items (see "Locus" above) ; whereas in . 632 the C - ~--~- ~ii cannot disapprove without recommendation to do so from an impartial ad hoc hearing board established by the President. interstate Coordination.-S. 632 provides for interstate forums- the River Basin Commissions-for coordination of the State planning efforts ; whereas S. 992 places interstate coordination responsibilities on the Secretary of the Interior. Incentive8.-S. 632's incentives are more substantial ($100 mil- lion pei~ year for not more than 90% of costs for first five years and 662/3% thereafter) than S. 992's ($20 million per year for five years not to exceed 50% of costs) . Both bills have a strong incentive in the re- quirement that Federal activities which have a land use impact must be in compliance with approved State programs. Sanctiong.-Both bills provide for termination of grants when- ever land use programs fail to gain Federal approval by the end of certain period (five years in S. 632 ; December 31, 1975 in S. 992) . In addition, both bills provide, a freeze on new Federal and federally- assisted activities which have a substantial land use impact when no plan has been submitted by the end of the same period. S. 632's freeze has a temporary suspension procedure in which, at the request of the ~+overnor or head of the relevant Federal agency, the President ap- proves the activity as necessary for the public health, safety, or wel- fare ; in S. 992's freeze public hearings are held on each activity and Federal agency findings and comments of the Secretaries of the Inte- nor and HTJD are attached to the Sec. 102(2) (C) environmental im- pact statement for each such activity. Finally, the r~eent ac~-~ amendment provides for a phased reduction (7% firs second year, and 21% third year) in the developmental (not res planning, or safety) portions of three grant in aid pr Airport and Airway Development Act, Federal-ai ~. and the Land and Water Conservation Fund) in a of which has not been approved after 1975. Relationaliip with Federal Lands.-Although attention devoted to the Federal lands in S. 992, `the problem of r& ~ fling and use of those lands with planning and use of private an public lands is addressed in S. 632. The latter measure requires eral agencies which have Federal land management responsibi take cognizance `of State and local needs and asks the States to tory those needs, provides for cooperative Federal-State on the Federal lands, and places the duty on the States to j compatible uses on lands contiguous to Federal lands., `~ is PAGENO="0022" 18 TABLE 1.-COMPARISON OF NATIONAL LAND USE POLICY BILLS Provision Senator Jackson bill, S. 632 Administration bill, 5. 992 I; Federal authority: 1. Administration of grants-in-aid pro- gram. 2. Review of statewide land use plans or State land use programs: (a) Approval. (b) Disapproval. 4. Other. 5. Authorization for admin- istration. II. Regional authority. Ill. Grants to States: 1. Program. 2. Recipient. Program administered by expanded and qpgraded Water Resources Council (bill amends Water Resources Planning Act, 79 Stat. 244), renamed Land and Water Resources Council (hereinafter "L. & W.R. Council") which is chaired by the Vice President and composed of Secretaries of Agriculture; Commerce, HEW, HUD, the Interior, Transporta- tion, and Army; Chairmen of FPC and CEQ; and Administrator of EPA. Approval by L. & W.R. Council upon con- sultation with heads of Federal agencies. Regional network of existing and newly created River Basin Commissions coor- dinates States' and other plans; recom- mends priorities for collection and analysis of data, etc.; and, upon re- quest of L. & W.R. Council or Governors, prepares comprehensive, coordinated plan. Single grant program: Statewide and Interstate Land Use Planning grants. Single State agencies, which can assign funds to local governments, and any interstate agency which is authorized by Federal law or interstate compact to plan for land use. To inventory land and related resources. To compile and analyze data relating to population, economy, growth, public programs and projects; ecological, en- vironmental, geological, and physical conditions relevant to siting of uses; projected land use requirements for all principal uses for 50 years in advance; and governmental organization and financial resources available for land use planning and management. To Program administered by Secretary of the Interior. Open-ended. No regional entities or functions. Two grant programs: program develop- grants and program management grants States. Two annual grants to assist States to de. velop land use programs. Annual grants thereafter to assist States in managing land use programs. Approval by Secretary of the Interior with approval of Secretary of HUD where pro- gram deals with large-scale develop- ment, key facilities, development and land use of regional benefit, and new communities, and upon consultation with heads of Federal agencies. After December 31, 1975, or approval of a grant under the Act, Federal agencies submitting 102(2)(C) statements must include a detailed statement On relation- ship of each proposed action to any applicable State land use plan which is eligible under the Act. When L. & W.R. Council determines Same as approval procedure. grounds for disapproval, it notifies President who appoints ad hoc hearing board of neutral Governor, impartial Federal official, and impartial citizen. L. & W.R. Council disapproves plan if board recommends disapproval. 3. Formulation of guide- L. & W.R. Council (with the approval of President designates Federal department lines. the President concerning coordination or agency (letter of transmittal and with other Federal planning assistance Administration witnesses noted that programs and utilization of other Council on Environmental Quality would Federal agencies). be designated). L. & W.R. Council maintains Federal Planning Information Center. L. & W.R. Council coordinates Federal programs which have land use impact. $16 million annually. , 3. Purpose. PAGENO="0023" 1 1~9 TABLE L-COMPARISON OF NATIONAL LAND USE POLICY BILLS-Continued Provision Senator Jackson bill, 5. 632 Administration bill, S. 992 5. Authorization. IV. State authority and State land use plan or program. 1. Scope of land use planning or program. 3. Criteria upon which Fed- eral review and continued funding are based. (a) Criteria concern- ing content of plan or program. Not to exceed 662% percent of planning and operating costs after first five years. $100 million annually. Comprehensive, statewide coverage with the exception of (i) Federal lands and (ii), at the State's discretion, cities over 250,000 or 20 percent of State's popu- lation. State planning and implementation of statewide plan. State may delegate planning and implementation to local governments subject to State's ulti- mate responsibility for approval and coordination of local plans and enforce- ment procedures, submission Of state- wide plan for Federal review, and con- sistency of that plan with Act's guide- lines. Statewide plan must include identification of lands which: because of ecological, environmental, geological, and physical conditions, exclusion of certain uses is dictated; are best suited for recrea- tional, agricultural, mineral, industrial, commercial uses and transportation and utility facilities; furnish amenities for revitalization of existing commun- ities and development of new commun- ties; are outside ofState but have land use impact within State; and notwith- standing Federal ownership or jurisdic- tion are important to State. Plan must provide: that requirements for material goods, natural resources, energy, hous- ing, recreation, and environmental amenities have been considered; for insuring consistency of plan with all governmental environmental stand- ards; for insuring orderly land use and development patterns; for protection of Federal lands by insuring compatible uses of contiguous areas for identifica- tion and management of flood plains; and for coordinating plans with plans of other States. Coverage of certain areas and types of uses: areas of critical environmental concern (coastal zones and estuaries; shorelands and floodplains of rivers, lakes, and streams ofState importance; rare or valuable ecosystems; scenic or historic areas; and other areas of similar valuable or hazardous characteristics), key facilities (public facilities which tend to induce development and urbani- zation of more than local impact, inclu- ding major airports, highway inter- changes and frontage access streets or highways, and major recreational lands and facilities), development and land use of regional benefit, and large-scale development. State land use program may employ any one or combination of three techniques: (i) direct State land use planning and regulation; (ii) State establishment of criteria and standards subject to judicial review and judicial enforcement of local implementation and compliance; and (iii) State administrative review of local land use plans, regulations, and imple- mentation with full powers to approve or disapprove. Land use program must include methods: for inventorying, designating, and exer- cizing State control over areas of critical environmental concern and areas impacted by key facilities; assuring that local regulations do not restrict or ex- dude development and land use of regional benefit; for influencing loca- tions of new communities, for controlling environmental impact of large scale development; for insuring no violation of any applicable air, water, noise or other pollution standard; and for revis- ing land use program. Programs must also include a detailed schedule for implementing all aspects of the program. - 4. Percent of cost. provide technical assistance to, aud train, government personnel. To ar- range cooperative planning of Federal lands. To develop common data bases and establish arrangements for data exchange. To conduct hearings, pre- pare reports, etc. and related planning and coordination functions Not to exceed 90 percent of planning Two annual grants not to exceed 50 per- costs for first five years. cent of the costs of development of land use program. After approval of program, not to exceed 50 percent of management costs. $20 million annually for five fiscal years. 2. Technique of State con- trol. PAGENO="0024" TABLE I-COMPARISON OF NATIONAL LAND ISSE POLICY BILLS-Continued Senator Jackson bill, S. 632 (b) Criteria concern- Single State, agency for development and ing administra- administration of statewide plan, with tion~,and per- interdisciplinary staff and consultants, formance. and with use of all pertinent local, State, and Federal pjans, studies, and data. And after 5 years: Federal ap- proval of plan; authority in agency to implement and enforce plan; agency may have power to acquire interests in real property; police power in agency to prohibit use of lands Inconsistent with plan; public hearings with right of appeal for aggrieved parties; and procedures established for modifying plan. Federal project must be consistent with approved statewide plan unless L. & W.R. Council determines that the proj- ect is essential to the national interest and there is no reasonable and prudent alternative. President may allow proj- ject despite Council's failure to do so only when overriding consideration of national policy require such approval. State or local governments requesting federally assisted projects having sig- nificant land use implications must in- dicate the views of the State land use planning agency as to consistency of such projects with the plan. Federal officials charged with responsi- sibility over Federal lands must take cognizance of State planning efforts and coordinate wherever possible. In areas of critical environmental concern, State has police power to prevent action inconsistent with program ; State laws controlling coastal zones take into account esthetic and ecological values and possible permanent destruction of wetlandsthrough draining,dredging and filling and need to restrict such activi- ties; State is organized to implement program; program approved by Gov- ernor; State has provided for adequate dissemination of information and for adequate public hearings. State has coordinated with metropolitan wide plans pursuant to Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 and with neighboring States; and State has considered plans and pro- grams of other State agencies and of Federal and local governments. Federal projects and activities signif- icantly affecting land use must be con- sistent with State land usp programs funded under Act except in cases of overriding national interest Federal agencies must insert statement of rela- tionship of project or activity to State land use program in each section 102(2)(C) N EPA enviionmental impact statement. Termination of grants when land use pro. gram fails to obtain approval of Secre- tary of the Interior (with the advice of the Secretary of IIUD) after December 31, 1975. In addition, the recent Administration amendment provides for a phased re- duction (7 percent first year, 14 percent second year, and 21 percent third year) in the developmental (not research, planning, or safety) portions of three grant-in-aid programs (the Airport and Airway Development Act, Federal-aid highway program, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund) in a State the program of which has not been approved after December 31, 1975. `rovislon Administration bill, S. 992 V. Coordination of Federal ac- tivities with State planning. VL ~aflctions: _l (a) Sanctions for failurelAfter five fiscal years, no Federal agency, After December 31, 1975, responsible to submit plan or except with respect to Federal lands, agency must hold a public hearing at program. will propose or undertake new actions least 180 days in advance of proposed or support new State administered action. Findings submitted for review actions which might have substantial and comment by Secretary of the Inte. adverse environmental impact or which nor and where appropriate, Secretary of would tend to irreversibly commit sub- HUD. Findings and comments must be stantial land or water resources. Upon attached to section 102(2)(C) statement. application of Governor or head of rele- Subject to exception when President vantFederal agency,the Presidentmay determines required by interests of the temporarilysuspend freeze if necessary United States. for public health, safety, or welfare: Provided, That State submits schedule for plan completion acceptable to L. & W.R. Council and no subsequent sus- pension will be granted unless State exercises diligence in complying with schedule. (6) Sanctions for failure to obtain Federal ap- proval of plan or programS Termination of grants when land use plan fails to obtain Council approval after five fiscal years PAGENO="0025" 21 8. A DEBATE BY THE SPONSORS O~' TIlE PROPOMLS [Editorial fro~n The Washhigton' Post, Nov. 20, 1971] PLANNING THE SI~OOND AMERICA Between now and the end of this century, the statisticians say, we will build as much again as we have built in our entire history. We will build a second America, as it were. Every 10 years new homes and apartment houses, schools and hospitals, factories and offices, roads and railroads, shops and parking lots, gas stations and whatever will cover some five million acres, an area the size of New Jersey. In 30 years, by the year 2000, a population the size of that of New York City today will have crowded into the area between Washington and Balti- more. And while it is true that the population as a whole may not iii- crease quite as rapidly as was predicted some years ago, the pace of urbanization is not likely to decrease because we keep using up more and more land per person. People keep moving from downtown apart- ment and townhouses to spacious suburban homes. Industry is build~ ing new plants on manorial country estates. Shopping centers, free- ways and parking lots are becoming ever more expansive. Our de~inand for electric energy doubles every 10 years and so does the amount of land needed for power sites and utility corridors. Land, in short, is becoming our most precious commodity. "Buy land," Will Rogers used to say, "they ain't making any more of it." Nor is land easily reused once it has been built on. You can't readily cleai~ or purify it like water or air, or recycle it like newsprint or beer cans. Land use, in fact, is the key to all the rest of our environmental problems. A freeway will open up an entire area to development. The nature of one development-whether it is a country club or a chemical plant-determines the nature of everything around it, it affects the quality of the air and the water and the lives of perhaps thousands of people. And yet, as a nation, we still subscribe to the old "pioneer land ethic," which holds that the owner of the land has the God-given right to do with it as he damned pleases. And our real estate taxing and zon- ing system, as administered and misadministered by some 10,000 local jurjsdictions, inevitably rewards "the highest and best use of the land." That means the most profitable use unless an incensed citizenry (which is not always a choir of angels, either) has smarter lawyers on its side. We obviously need a better and more democratic method to deter- mine what use we make of the land. Last year several states, includi Colorado, Maine, Vermont and Georgia, adopted legislation rrov for state land use management. Some 120 national land-use ~ *~ furthermore, have been introduced in Congress. Two of them ar under final consideration by the Senate Committee on ~ ~- ~ - sularAffairs. One (S. 632) was intro~ ed ` `~ The other (S. 992) is part of Presi ~ mental legislation. Identical b~1~ n ~ ~ the J mittee. There is a good chance that the matter wL both houses before the end of this Congress. The Jackson and the administration bills agree i: proach, which has the almost-unanimous support - PAGENO="0026" 22 ruralists, environmentalists and developmentalists alike," as a Senate staff member put it. Both proposals would encourage the states, which have the police power under the 50-year-old zoning enabling legisla- tion, to take the initiative in developing statewide land use plans and to implement them. Both would provide federal funds for the staff and information gathering to draw up these plans. Both would make all federal activities that involve the use of land-such as highway con- ~truction, federal power dams, parks and the like-subject to the state plan. And both call for federal review of the plan to assure coordina- , tion. What one state decides about the location of an airport, say, or a water-resource project, can obviously have a decisive effect on the wel- fare of neighboring states. The fundamental difference between the two bills seems only seman- tic but could, in our view, spell success or failure of the whole effort to bring order into our environment. Senator Jackson's bill calls for comprehensive statewide planning based on over-all economic, social and environmental concerns. It challenges the planners to assure a brighter future by bringing our economic and social needs into balance with the requirements of the natural ecology. The administration bill would have the state plans focus only on "areas of critical environ- mental concern, the location of key facilities and use or development of regional benefit." It does not define "critical environmental concern" or "regional benefit" and thus seems to us only a call to put out the brush fires. We need more than that. It is none too soon to get started on acting rather than merely reacting to the problems posed by that second America. It must be comprehensively planned, as Senator Jackson proposes, if it is to be a livable place. [Letter to the Editor from Russel E. Train, Chairman. council on Environmental Quality, in The Washington Post, Dec. 15, 1971J ON THE STATES' ROLE IN ~~PLANNING THE SECOND AMERICA~~ Your editorial of Saturday, Nov. 201 "Planning the Second America," accorded welcome attention to an issue fundamental to many environmental problems, the use of our nation's land. I commend your statements in favor of state action to take control over certain land use problems and areas. But I do not agree with your comments to the effect that federal legislation should require "Comprehensive statewide planning" in all states and that the presence or absence of a requirement for compre- hensive coverage, called for in S. 632 (Senator Jackson's land use bill) could "spell success or failure of the whole effort to bring order into our environment." There are three important reasons why the administration's pro- posed National Land Use Policy Act (S. 992, H.R. 4332) would re- quire selective state regulation rather than comprehensive state plan- mng. First, we have somewhat less faith than you in the efficacy of "comprehensive planning" without adequate teeth or implementation controls to make planning work. For nearly half a century most American cities have been required by law to zone their lands "in PAGENO="0027" 23 accordance with a comprehensive p1an~" We are not impressed by the results of this comprehensive planning in most cities. We are not in- terested in encouraging more "advisory planning," but rather we would insist that federally aided state action on land use lead to real state control to assure effective results. Second, we do not want to force all states to take more control from their local governments than is absolutely necessary to deal with regional or statewide land use issues. Many states have no tradition or experience in planning and regulating the use of land and some states confer substantial autonomy upon their cities. The federal inter- est in proper land use is not in the wholesale dismantling of local con- ~trol over land use, but in state control where issues of truly state or regional significance are involved. Therefore, our bill would require that states control land use in "areas of critical environmental con- cern" (the coastal zone, shorelands of major rivers and lakes, scenic and historic districts, etc.) , areas impacted by "key facilities" (major airports, highway interchanges and parks) and large scale deve1o~- ment of all kinds. These are the problems that are too big for local government. We would not exclude the large cities from coverage under our land use policy bill as S. 632 would. (Contrary to your as- sertion, the administration bill contains a substantial definition of each of the operative terms). ~ Finally, the administration bill is selective and specific because it is not enough merely to ask the states to prescribe areas for residential or commercial uses and expect the various conflicts over development to be sensitively dealt with. For example, there are some kinds of devel- opment (housing could be one example) which are badly needed by metropolitan areas but which are resisted by local governments for economic and other reasons. Our bill would deal with these problems by requiring states to establish a process to permit "development of regional benefit" to be weighed against a locality's reasons for wanting to exclude such development. If a local government could not estab- lish valid reasons for excluding the development, (a valid reason might be the fact that an area already possessed a fair share of the type of development being proposed) then its zoning or other exclu- sionary laws would have to fall and the development would have to be permitted. One way a state could comply with this provision is by authorizing the courts to adjudicate cases where local governments are alleged to be standing in the way of regional needs. The concept of regional benefit is not hostile to planning, but depends upon sound planning to establish levels of regional needs, suitability of areas to meet regional objectives, and capacities of local governments to ab- sorb growth. It is not difficult to get people to agree upon the general desirability of comprehensive state planning, and certainly we are not opposed to it if a state wishes to do it. However, the administration's land use bill goes beyond planning to the central issue of controls. It is at this point that our legislation is quite specific indeed, calling for a fundamer~tal reallocation of responsibilities between state and local governments where regional issues are involved. I hope you will take a closer look at our bill. PAGENO="0028" 24 er tG the ~ditor from Senetor Renry M. tackson, Chairman, Senate CommittOe 9fl Interior and Insular Affairs, in The Washington Post, Dee. 28, 1971] SENATOR JAGKSON ON THE BZLL FOR A LAND USE POLICY I wish to thank you for your editorial of Nov. 20, "Planning th~ Second America", and your support for ~ny National Land Use Policy proposal. I would also like to comment on the remarks of Mr. Russell Train, chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, which ap- peared as a letter to the Editor on Dec 15 Both my bill (introduced in January 1970) and the administration's bi11~ (introduced in February 1971) would provide grants-in~aid to the ~ ~ ~ states to develop state land use programs. One major differe~ice be-. tween the two measures is that my bill requires "comprehensive plan- mug" by the states, while the administration's bill requires state control only over lands in "special areas" or upon which "special uses" might be sited. (The special uses and areas are "critical areas of en- vironmental concern", "key facilities", and "development and land use of regional benefit.") ~ Mr. Train maintains the comprehensive planning approach would be less effective than the administration's limited critical areas and uses approach. I disagree. There are several reasons why the administration's bill would not necessarily foster the wise management of our finite land resources. First, although the three categories in which the states could as- sume land controls are "balanced" in that embodied in one category _-~ - -~-- rnental concerns, in another economic concerns, and the ~ ~ and, possibly, social concerns, there is no guarantee that balance" would be maintained. The states would be given ride to define these categories and the distinct possibility S that one category could be defined very broadly and another iarrowly, thus destroying any possibility of effecting true ce" in land use decisionmaking. For example, one state might ~ its entire coastal zone to be an "area of critical environmental `i" and thus effectively inhibit the construction of needed hous- nits or transportation and industrial facilities. Another state, -- to expand its tax base, could define very narrowly "area of nvironmental concern" and very broadly "development and ~f regional benefit", and thus sharply limit consideration of ~onmental requirements in the disposition and management of its a potentially imbalanced approach to land use is ex- ed by the requirement in the administration's bill that the tes must give labels to land areas in order to obtain land use con- I over them. Unless a state were to label a land area an "area of . 1 environmental concern", "key facility", or "development and use of regional benefit", it could not include the area in its land ; rogram. This labelling system is certainly not a rational process of planning for land use. It is, rather, a prejudging of land use with- out adequate study. Let me give an example: The Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, on which I rye as chairman, was actively involved in the Everglades Jetport ~overs--. I submit that the critical areas and uses approach of ;ration measure would have forestalled any equitable set- PAGENO="0029" wot ~ to it thE iOfl ~. `~ ~ e state W( ye preju ed ~ site's a iandonment ) such a ~ , " approa ~ does not encourage flexible and judicious long-term analysis but rather precipitates short-term, or, as you noted in the editorial, "brush fire" actions. Pressure from con- servationists could evoke sudden state assumption of control over the proposed sites of power plants. Pressure from transportation interests could result in effective control over highway routes and airport sites. The exercise of control to solve immediate issues and to meet immedi.. ate pressure invites narrow consideration of the important problems at hand. Ignored are the larger and longer-term social, economic, and environmental implications which the solution would have for the state and the region. My proposal, which enjoyed your editorial support, calls for corn- prehensive statewide planning. The requirement of comprehensiveness would ensure a broad and careful consideration and integration of all relevant social, economic and environmental concerns. Contrary to Mr. Train's letter, comprehensiveness [refers to the breadth of considera- tion and does not call for] in-depth intervention by the state in tru~ly local planning decisions. In fact, subject only to the state's subsequent review to ensure compliance with the planning process and ci~iteria st~t forth in the bill, each state could, and in my view ehould, delegate to those localities which possess planning competence its planning and implementation functions. On the other hand, the administration's bill would prohibit any delegation of planning to localities. To further ensure careful, long-range planning my measure con~ tains a "balanced" set of economic, social, and environmental criteria of which the states must take cognizance in developing ~ `~ The criteria do not say "thou shalt have so much of this ~ of that." Rather they merely say to the states they mu consider, and attempt to develop their own integrative a full range of their citizens' varied needs: environmental, recreal service, energy, industrial, housing and transportation. I welcome your editorial support and hope that national 1 policy legislation will be enacted early in the second session of 92d Congress. [Letter to the Editor from Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary of the Interior, in the Wash. lngton Post, Jan. 4, 1972J SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR ON THE LAND USE POLICY The Department of the Interior endorses wholeheartedly the and philosophy so ably expressed in The Post's editorial ( the need for a National Land Use Policy. That e two subsequent letters to the editor, the first on Dec. 1 Train of the Council on Environmental Quality and the second Senator Jackson, appearing in the Dec. 28 issue. PAGENO="0030" 26 rial characterized the administration's bill as "oiily a. ~ brush fires" whereas you favored the "more corn- s. 632. Senator Jackson, who sponsored S.. lministration's bill as a "potentially imbal- ance We ~. ~ iaracterize the basic difFerence between thetwo bills dif- ferently. ~ ~ would contend that all planning objectives have equal~ priority. `1 ~ ~ ~ 1 of a jetport is clearly more critical from every point of view than ~ location of a corner filling station. And since planning resources are not infinite, some effort must be made to set the priorities. 5. 632, calling for statewide planning, provides no guidance in the assignment of priorities. Available funds might be wasted on local problems of little statewide concern or spread so thinly across the board that no problem is adequately treated. More serious, we feel, is the provision in 5. 632 which would permit states to exempt metropolitan areas from the so-called "comprehensive planning." Most of the really difficult planning problems are in or near urban areas, where development pressure is most intense, and where jurisdictional disputes are greatest. By allowing the states to shirk the tough political task of asserting control over maj or metropolitan areas, Senator Jackson has begged the really tough issue and cast his bill essentially a planning bill for rural areas. . ~ The administration's bill requires the state planning agency re- ceiving federal funds first to identify what we consider to be the most critical planning needs ; areas of critical environmental concern (which, contrary to your editorial, is defined in the bill), areas im- pacted by key facilities, such as airports, large scale development and development of regional benefit.These will necessarily include problems in urban areas. In addition to concentrating state. and federal planning efforts where they are `needed most, the administration's bill would re- strict state interference in local affairs to those issues of more than local concern. ~ Chairman Train pointed out another difference between the admin- istration's bill and S. 632, which is that the latter places primary em- phasis on developing more plans while the administration's proposal places primary emphasis on restructuring the land use regulatory `mechanism so that those plans can be implemented and not simply join the stack of good plans that have been gathering dust on the shelf. The thrust of the administration's bill is therefore to concentrate on institutional reform but not repudiate the entire existing state mechanism for land use control. It recognizes that the great majority of land use decisions are of purely local interest and should continue to be made at the local level. Two other features of the administration's bill are worthy of note.. The administration's bill is not simply exclusionary or protection- ist-designed to tell developers where they cannot develop. It also is de- signed to assist development and land use projects of regional benefit to overcome local exclusionary ordinances and find places where they can `develop. Such developments include those things that are neces~ PAGENO="0031" 27 sary and everyone agrees to but few want in their own community, such as waste treatment facilities and various kinds of institutions. The second important feature is flexibility. The administration is asking the states to undertake the delicate task of restructuring `their relationships with their respective local governments. Washington should not try to tell the states exactly how to do this important job. The administration's bill sets out three broad techniques which the states may use: direct state regulation; concurrent state and local regu~ lation; or local implementation of state established criteria with judi- cial review and enforcement. Therefore, returning to Senator `Jackson's characterization we see his bill as "imbalanced" in its omission of metropolitan areas, its lack of planning priorities, and its overlooking the regulatory mechanism in land use planning. Again let me commend you for putting your finger on the heart of the environment issue. "Land use, in fact, is the key to all the rest of our environmental problems." 4. A SIJMMARY OF TH~ HEARINGS During the months of March, April, and July 1970, and May-June 1971, testimony was received from over 60 witnesses on the national land use bills pending before the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. Additional communications were received from twenty- six Governors. The desirability of establishing a national land use policy has been studied by diverse interest groups, including industry, environmental- ists, professional planners, labor and national trade associations. This summary of the Committee's hearing records illustrates the breadth of attention devoted to this important subject and also highlights some of the salient issues on which there is considerable depth of in- terest group opinion. A recurring theme in the testimony was the inadequacy of existing land planning arrangements at the state level. It was noted that local governments are increasingly unable to cope with the public outcry over problems associated with environmental deterioration. Moreover, many witnesses contended that state land planning activities today are not relevant to decisionmaking on the large scale developments over which the jurisdiction of local governments do not impinge. While major land use proposals normally cast their shadows long before development actually takes place, the states, in many instances, are not effectively involved in fully evaluating the environmental, social and economic impacts. Nonetheless, several witnesses stressed that the states are potentially capable of becoming the principal architect of land management, par- ticularly with respect to developments of regional and statewide concern. It was also emphasized that the Federal Government can do much to provide new leadership and `new directions in land planning. Several witnesses testified that more effective mechanisms must be devised for an improved Federal-State partnership. The Federal Gov- PAGENO="0032" 28 ~itic providing numerous rnments, and through ~ on vast Federal land onal Governo: National Governor8 Conference ~n of State Governments was submitted for the ~ of a policy declaration formulated at the nce: There is an interest and need for a more efficient and comprehensive system of national and statewide land use planni~g and decision-making. The proliferating transportation systems, large-scale industrial and economic growth, conflicts in emerging patterns of land use, the fragmentation of governmental entities exer- cisin~ land use planning powers, and the Increased size, scale and impact of private actions have created a situation in which land use management decisions of national, regional and statewide concern are being made on the basis of ex- pedlèncy, tradition, short-term economic considerations, and other factors which are often unrelated to the real concerns of a sound land use policy. Across the Nation, a failure to conduct sound land use planning has required public and private enterprise to delay, litigate, and cancel proposed public utility `and industrial and commercial developments because of unresolved land use questions, thereby causing an unnecessary waste of human and economic resources and a threat to public' services, often resulting in decisions to locate utilities and industrial and commercial activities in the area of least public and political resistance, but without regard to relevant environmental and economic considerations. The land use decisions of the Federal Government often have a tremendous impact upon the environment and the patterns of development in local corn- munities ; that the substance and the nature of a national land use policy ought ` to be formulated upon an expression of the needs and interests of state, regional, and local government as well as those of the 1~ ederal Government Federal land use decisions require greater participation by state and local government to insure that they are in accord with the highest and best standards of land use management and the desires and aspirations of state and local government. The promotion of the general welfare and to provide for the full and wise a~ .icatiofl of the resources of the Federal Government in strengthening the nental, economic and social well-being of the people of the United States, ye, is a continuing responsibIlity of the Federal Government, but should stent with and recognize the responsibility of state and local government - tnning and management. I be undertaken the development of a national policy, to be known Land-Use Policy, which shall incorporate environmental, eco- ii other ai - e factors. Such policy shall serve as a guide ,~e national level which affect the pattern of I growth and development on the federal lands, and ramework for development of interstate, state and local land `onal Land Use Policy should: r the continued economic growth of all States and regions of the - :~ ~ ~ patterns of land use planning management and development which are in accord with sound environmental principles and which offer a range of alternative locations for specific activities and encourage the wise and balanced use of the Nation's land and water resources; 3. Favorably influence patterns of population distribution in a manner such that a wide range of scenic, environmental and cultural amenities are available to the American people; 4. Contribute to carrying out the federal responsibility for revitalizing existing rural communities and encourage, where appropriate, new corn- munities which offer diverse opportunities and diversity of living styles; 5. Assist State Government' to assume responsibility for major land use planning and management decisions which are of regional, interstate, and national concern; PAGENO="0033" Public versus Private Decisionmaking A threshold question addressed in the hearings was the ath~isability of public intervention in private land decisions. Because of the domi- nating influence which the economic profit objective plays in most private land operations, there is a problem of developing adequate land controls which account for the broader public interest. Chairman Jackson stated: Today, most land use decisions remain almost totally private decisions, even though they often result in public costs far beyond the proprietary interest of the decisionmaker. . . . The Nation can no longer permit public or private decisions to go forward in disregard of the general public demand for environmental quality. We must impose upon both public and private proposals criteria which will pre- vent unthinking, unnecessary environmental impairment and which will prohibit the loss of important values in the name of short-term gain or profit. State and Local Concerns vereus National Goals and Guideline8 After reasonable public controls are suitably formulated, the critical question is how the responsibilities of imposing such controls can best be distributed among the Federal, State and local governments. In making this determination, both State and local objectives and priori- ties must be fully considered in the context of broader national goals. The need of maintaining flexibility in land planning and regulation was discussed by Chairman Jackson : Certainly each State, with the advice of its communities, should devise its own plan. These plans should be diverse. Yet, to allow diversity without prejudicing the needs of our people, the legislation must supply the States with guidelines setting forth very clearly the national goals we seek to attain. While it was generally acknowledged that the develtpm~nt of a concise national land use plan would be a difficult achievement, several witnesses presented strong arguments for the formulation of uniform national guidelines and action-forcing inducements to encourage all States to participate in land plaTming on an equal footing. Patrick .J. Lucey, Governor of Wisconsin, testified: I believe a strong set of national guidelines is necessary. These would apply to urban areas that transcend State boundaries, regional and national transporta- tion systems. They should delineate corridors through which oil, gas and elec- trical energy can move, and other areas of broader than statewide concern. Both bills recognize that State government is the key to developing and imple- menting a rational land use policy. States represent a wide variety, however, of social, economic, physical, and political conditions. They also differ in Institu- tional structures, Government philosophies, and intergovernment relationships. Institutional arrangen~ents that are appropriate for one State may be unacceptable for another. A means of cooperation by all levels of government which provides for innovation and which permits individual States to have an influence on their destinies within a national framework should be provided by the act. 29 75-793 O-72----3 PAGENO="0034" Determining. Proper Roles for State, Regional, and Local Govern- ments A comprehensive framework for the balancing of State and local land use concerns and powers was presented to the Committee by Richard F. Babcock, chairman of the American Law Institute's proj- ect on the formulation of a Model State Land Development Code: In considering various formulas i~or allocating state and local power in the American Law Institute's Model Land Development Code, the Reporters for the Institute tried to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. There are important benefits in having power exercised at a level as close to the people as possibie-an issue, by the way, on which the suburbanite and the ghetto resi- dent find common ground. Local control should be given up only where important state or regional interestS clearly require it, and then only to the degree neces- sary to achieve the state or regional goal. The system proposed by the Reporters for the ALT is a relatively simple ohe, but because it involves agencies with new names it may initially be easier to under- stand by reference to the following chart: In general, ~ the functions of the State Land ~ Planning Agency includes the establishment of rules and standards governing development having state or . i~gionaI impact. Anyone seeking permission to undertake such development, how- ever, applies to the local Land Development Agency where the hearing is held and the initial decision made. The State Land Planning Agency may participate in the hearing and, if the decision is unfavorable, may appeal it to the State Land AdjudicatOry Board, an independent state board created tO hear such appeals. The developer or any other party to the local hearing also ~ has a similar right of appeal. This system preserves the benefits of community control by assuring the local agency the right to make the Initial decision in each case. It allows the State Land Planning Agency to concentrate on policy-making functions and participate In individtial eases only to the extent it feels such participation is necessary to defend its policies. And by allowing the state board to review local decisions on the record made below, it avoids the necessity of creating an expensive and time- consuming procedure for new hearings at the state level. A key element of the entire system is* the principle that the state would be allowed to become Involved only in the "big cases." Probably 90% of the local F 30 rGovcrnor I Lstato I~and Pi~nning Agen~J ~tatc I~and Adjudicatory E3tablishes atandarls with which loca3. agenciea muat comp'y. kppeara at local hoaringa. Decides appeala fro~a deci.' sions of Land Development Agenciós on th. record made below. [Local Governing P~y~4 Agcncy~ lià~.ds hearir~gs and makes initial decision on.all development proposals. PAGENO="0035" I 31 ~ land develdlnnent decisions have no realstate or regional impact. It is important to keep the state out of those 90%, not only to preserve ~ community control, but to prevent the state agency from being bogged down in paperwork over a multi- tude of unimportant decisions. William K. Gernhauser, speaking on behalf of the National Asso- ciation of Counties, argued strongly for the' use of existing expertise of local agencies for both the planning and implementation of State- wide plans wherever local units have been delegated such authorities; The detailed preparation of land use plans should be accomplished at the county and city level. Statewide and regional consideration should be para- mount in preparing these local plans, but we should not ignore the expertise and many years of experience that exists in our local planning agencies. ~ ~ ` After counties and cities have prepared detailed land use plans, councils of governments and State authorities should review these plans for regional and State implications and consistenèies. Once these plans have been approved and adopted, it seems logical to use city and county planning agencies. to implement the approved plans. It would seeni, on the other hand, illogical and wasteful not to utilize those thousands of plan- ning experts that exist at the local level. ~ . ` ` The case for using "regional councils", which involve more tha~fi one local ~overnment and encompass regional communities, as a means of establishing areawide policy jurisdiction without depriving local gov- ernments of the control andclirection of their own social and economic destinies, was presented by James G. Martin, vice president of the Na- tional Service to Regional Councils : PlannIng is a two-way street. Itcannot be effectively accomplished by a process~ imposed solely from the top. In short, local and regional interest must be articu- lated and considered in the formulation of Static land use plans. And in our opin- ion, this interest could be represented through the elected officials of the local government, acting through their regional councils, if they are to be. most effective. ` Under this procedure-it h~s precedent in the procedure for developing a State development plan under the proposed rural revenue sharing legislation-each State would regionalize. ` ` ` These' regions or districts would be established by State law or designation by the Governor, or Governors in the case of interstate areas Their governing bodies would be composed primarily of local elected o~1cials from the general purpose local governments of the region. ~ ` ~ ` The purpose of these regional ~organ1zations would be to reflect regional and local land use planning in the development of statewide land use plan. . . Land use decisions cannot be made in a vacuum. Their most immediate impact is on the physical environpient. But this influence does not stop there ; they Sf- feet the social and economic environment as well. Therefore, planning and land use regulations can only be an effective tool of government management when ` there is a policy context that considers all of these factors. ` Determd,ninq the Proper Roles of State and Federa7 `Governments in ; ~ ~ ` La~id (78e Policy and Planning~ Some States have already established forceful policies to control future land ` development, reflecting a determination to. influence the countless decisions of local agencies and private developers. Governor Deane C. Davis of Vermont outlined his views on the func- tion of State Land Use plans : ` ` I feel stronglythat such plans must provide a focal point for all levels of public and private development activities. In this regard, our plans will (1) provide en- teria' for statewide development and subdivision regulation, (2) be a guide for State capital investments, (3) be a guide to regional and local planning and gov- ernment agencies, and (4) be a means of informing private enterprise of public goals and policies regarding land development. PAGENO="0036" 32 A. Chamber of Commerce statement of December 17, 1971 defined the Chamber's position as to the proper role of the Federal Government in land use policy and planning as follows A proper function of the Federal Government is to articulate a statement of national goals, developed through interaction of the public and governments at all levels, as a general framework for anticipating long-range national needs, including land use needs. Federal legislation should encourage states to develop broad land use goals taking into consideration the overall supply of resources and the fundamental economic and social needs of the nation as reflected in the statement of national goals. . Meshing the Planning for Federal and Non-Federal Lands The extent to which land use planning should attempt to encompass the totality of our nation's land resources was a question debated among the members of the Committee. Senators Gordon Allott and Len B. Jordan submitted the following views for the hearing record: It is our belief that land use planning for both Federal and non-Federal lands should proceed together, since they are mutually interdependent, and the results of decisions With respect to one will generally have an impact upon decisions to be made with respect to the other. . . . We believe our Committee should, and will, consider legislation which . in- eludes land use planning for all our lands, Federal and State. We believe that such legislation, by providing a concerted foundation for land use planning on lands within both the Federal and State authority will lead to the desired end: an intelligent, comprehensive system for the maximum and best use of all the lands of this country for the long-term benefit of all of the people. The Allott-Jordan statement recalled a pertinent observation of the Public Land Law Review Commission in its report to Congress: We are convinced that effective land use planning is essential to rational ~rograms for the use and development of the public lands and their resources. Planning is done at the natioilal, regional, and local levels. It is intended to pro- vide a guide for future decisions. Thus, plans developed by the public land agencies at the national level provide guidance for decisions at all levels, and those developed at the regional and local levels provide guidance for decisions at those levels. Our interest focuses on planning land uses at the regional and local levels because the effects of public land programs are felt most strongly there. And it is at those levels that the Commission noted the greatest public concern with the manner in which public land programs are being implemented. Resource Management and Industry PrQblems Natural resource development and industrial expan'~ion were often noted as key controversies in land use planning. John Quarles, general counsel of the Environmental Protection Agency, summarized the views of many witnesses concerned with the general problems of siting of industry. An orderly mechanism of general applicability is needed to assure that land use decisions not involving Federal lands or activities are made on a planned basis, and after consideration of possible adverse impacts upon the envhonment. To illustrate this point, I would like to mention one issue which was of con- cern to me This was the action of the Secretary of the Interior in issuing a public warning to a large German Chemical Manufacturer, BASF, that it would be required to meet stringent standards for environmental protection in building a proposed petrochemical plant on the estuary of the Colleton River in South Carolina, near Hilton Head. This warning resulted in a decision by the company not to build the plant. In my judgment this case, although it was concluded satisfactorily, from our point of view, graphically illustrates the need to have an orderly means for dealing with such problems, that generally cannot be handled successfully on an ad hoc basis with sole reliance on persuasion. Instead, a more compre- hensive approach is required, one which incorporates all interests, public and private, which are involved in deci~ions affecting certain types of land use. PAGENO="0037" 33 Preser'vi~ng Prime Agr~cult'arai Land John W. Scott, Master of the National Grange, warned of the critical need to protect prime agricultural lands from unnecessary enci~oacIiinent: Looking at recent trends in land use, it's apparent that urbanization favors the use of the better farmland. Also, a fair-sized chunk of the better quality laud is located in those counties witliiii Stanclard Metropolitan Statistical Areas ( SMSAs) -the ones in or nearby a city or community with at least 50,000 ~ l)eople. In 1904, by the latest data available, the SMSA's had some 17 percent of total farm numbers, and 14 percent of the harvested cropland. The SMSA's also con- tamed about 15 percent of the better land, i.e., of Land Use Capability Classes I, II, and III. The annual conversion of land to urban uses is around 420,000 acres on the average~ Most of this is former cropland, and much of it, probably of Classes 1-111. Nationwide estimates have been made, but a study of urbanization in 98 northeastern counties showed that about 80 percent of the converted land fell into this category. In the 1950's and most of the 1960's it was population pressure and high in- comes-coupled with readily available mortgage money-that led to large shifts of rural land to urban use. Financing difficulties reduced the level of urban ex- pansion in the late sixties. Energy Production and Land Use Our ability to meet the energy requirements of a growing popu- lation and an expanding economy was singled out as a critical land- oriented issue by John Nassikas, Chairman of the Federal Power Commission: electric utility industry, during the ruction of about 40 new hydroelectric more, approximately 50 new pumped storage megawatts or more and about 90 fossil and fl new sites. * * * d additional ~er I, second is the LI ~ J `onme] ~ig regulatory PAGENO="0038" 34 inconsistent governmental policies pertaining to the issuance of licenses, per- mits and other regulatory approvals. For example, a current 1~dison nuclear generation project involves some eight- een federal, state and regional regulatory approvals, and a current Edison fossil- fueled generation project has been substant1ally~affected by reason of a jurisdic- tional dispute between a state and local agency. ~ * While the foregoing m~y at first blush appear to be of little consequence, the potential for delay and the potential effects of delay can be staggering. The nu- clear project referred to abov~ involves in some cases single and in many cases multiple reviews and approvals by the l3nited States Atomic Energy Commission the United States Army Corpsof. Engineers, the United States Coast Guard, the California State Water Resources Control Board, the California Department çf Public Health, and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San IMege Region: A ~1elay in acquiring anecessar~r regulatory approval would in all likelihood result in delay of the entire project. Additionally, there is a growing tendency for regulatory delays to have a tandem effect,~ because a given regula- tory approval is often a prerequisite to another regulatory approval. Multiple tJ$e Several witnesses stressed the need for flexibility in assigning high- est, or best, uses to the land in response to changing national needs. Carl Bagge, President of the National Coal Association, ~irged that a distinction be made in establishing land use criteria which reflects Un- derstanding of the inherent differences between renewable and non- renewable land resources : . ~ ~ . . Coal, as well as other minerals, are uniquely different from many other natural resources such as forests and agricultural products. New trees and crops are renewable assets and can be grown in many different areas. Land use plan- ning for agricultural, recreational, residential, commercial and industrial pur- poses can take advantage of innumerable sites depending upon the criteria to be established. . . However, nature h~is already . done most of the ~ planning for coal and other. minerals. Since man cannot grow minerajs in the earth, coal must, of course, be mined where it can be found. In view of the importance of coal to our energy- oriented economy, especially with the limited reserves of our other hydrocarbon fuels, a land use- policy should recognize as a priority~ tise the necessity to permit the fulL development of our coal rOserves. .. There must also be an express recognition that mineral, extractive operations are only a temporary use of the land and, thus, lands should be categorized and considered in terms of their multiple benefits to man. Inherent in this multiple- use concept is the assumption that we can no longer disqualify the use of land for different purposes at different times. Therefore, land well suited to supply pre- mium coal close to a major urban market area for a period of years, could after that time, be classified as best suited for low-density residential use, open space or industrial use. This is particularly true in view of what can be done today through sound, effective reclamation of surface mined areas. It is also essential to take into account the fact that most of our mineral re- soUrces lie hidden beneath the earth's surface and only a small percentage of these reserves have been adequately * explored so as to be clearly identifiable. Relatio~1iips Betwe&it Land and Water The distribution of water resources poses a constraint on land de~ velopment. And ch~ges in , land use patterns affect both the quality and quantity of water. The relevance of these relationships in land use policy was pointed out by John Eosholt, chairman of the National Water Resources Association: In most parts of the western United States, land planning without regard for water planning would indeed be futile. To a degree, the use of land is depend- ent upon the availability of water of suitable quantity and quality. From this standpoint allocation among competing uses determines the shape of the development.. PAGENO="0039" 35 Meeting t/~e Needs of Economic Expan&ion James B. Turnbull of the National Forest Products Association at- tributed many of the economic shortcomings and problems faced by all resource development industries to the lack of a national land use policy: There is a direct chain of economic consequences which has its beginnings in the land. Lands provide the oppnrtunity foi~ investment of private funds for the pro- duction of useful goods. When such investment is made, with the prospect of an adequate return, jobs are created. Jobs allow the creation of communities, family stability and payrolls, 1~ad to taxes and social, business and government organizations. ~ ~ Removal of the basic ingredient, access to ~àw material resources, has a domino effect throughout such communities and ultimately upon the entire economy. When the resources use is not assured, the Investment is not forthcoming; when the investmeiit is withdrawn or withheld, jobs are reduced or are not realized ; when jobs disappear, people are obliged to disappear from communities; whole communities dry up and go away. The people then tend to go 1~o the metro- politan centers. Thus, the lack of a national laud ~ use policy, dedieated to sustaining a vital rural economy, i~ contributing materially to the problems of the cities and the decline of our'rural population and it~ self-sufficiency. The harsh realities of this economic formula. are best revealed when one considers that the forest, products and other resource-ba~ed industries should provide an appropriate share of `good employment opportunities and products for new workers entering the national work force over the years. Without land, withopt resource stability and investment security, those jobs will never be created. Removing Unnecessavy (lontraints on Land Development Many of the growing cOnflicts between environmental protection and development were seen to result from unnecessary restraints im- posed on needed projects. "Sometimes locally unwaned develQp- ment," said Housing and TTrban Development Secretary George `W. Romney, "may be important to environmental protection objectives. For it is often the large or controversial project that is' pushed' off, in the absence of any more, suitable site, to a remote or marginal loca- tion where there are marshlands, or forests, or valuable open space that would otherwise be protected. But failure to remove unnecessary constraints and to improve the efficiency with' which land is made available for development has other adverse consequences. For if `an adequate supply of `suitably prepared land dannot be made available, there are human needs that will be filled only at much higher cost, or filled not at all . . ." Linking Land Use Planning to Environmefltal Control$ Considerable attention was given to the concept that land use plans should serve as a framework against which the decision-making on environmental protection could be evaluated. Chairman Jackson To a very great extent all environmental management decisions are ultimately related to land use decisions. All environmental problems are outgrowths of land use patterns. The collective land use decisions which we make today an~E in the future will dictate our success in providing the American people with a quality life in quality surroundings. Similarly,' Chairman Russell Train of the Council on Environ- mental Quality said PAGENO="0040" 36 I don't think there is any question but that the matter of effective land use controls is the single most critical element affecting the quality of our en- vironment which remains substantially unaddressed as a matter of national policy. . . . [The] objective in developing [such a] policy is to reform the institutions of Government in such a way that important conservation areas are protected, vital development needs are accommodated, and major develop- ments and facilities are controlled. Housing and Soeial. Need$ Throughout the. hearings, attention was focused on the goal set by Congress in 1949 of providing "a decent home and suitable living environment for every American family." In commenting on our fail- ure to meet this very worthy objective, Professor Ann L. Strong, of the Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Pennsylvania, argued that a new, well-articulated national land use policy should bring concentrated effort to the nation's housing needs As a government, we must officially reestablish our goals as a nation and then plan for the commitment of our resources to the fulfillment of those goals. We also must create a process for continually reevaluating our goals and the com- parative effectiveness of the programs followed in realizing them. This national land use policy must embody two commitmeuts: (1) a commitment to use our land to afford to all people a suitable living environment, and (2) a guarantee that this first commitment will be enforced throughout the United States. The National Association of Home Builders submitted a Resolution on this subject, which stressed the responsibility of both the public and private sectors: NAHB RESOLUTION ability and desire to achieve goals is not occurring at a on of housing t the federal ement these ridustry the op- lement f land ersli~p all be reviewed pei rels, cally to f a commitmi t to implement .vate s the community, nec o~ is at all levels ndits - of incentives anced hous- ala. - )rdering of housing and other development priorities was viewed by Professor Strong as only a partial approach in using land use policy for improving overall social opportunities: Whereas, the Americans, `~ IMPLEMENTING NATIONAL HO1J5ING GOALS responsibility of the Home Building Industry is to house all me Building Industry has the our national housi try's Ii - PAGENO="0041" r 37 How are we to decide when economic growth shall be limited to protect the natural environment or when efficiencies of agglomeration should be preferred over goals of widespread distribution of production? What minimum standard of living do we wish to guarantee to all people, in- cluding what opportunity for education, what jobs, what accessibility to work and to nature,: what quality of housing, what range of public services, and what income? How highly will we value provision of choices as part of this guarantee? Once we refine answers to this set of questions, we can determine the implications for economic development and for tradeoffs between such development, use of natural resources, and location of development. New Towns The declaration of a national land use policy was seen as a mech~ anism for implementing the Congressional commitment to the new town movement. With the enactment of the Housing and Urban Devel- opment Act of 191T0, Title VII, "Urban Growth and New Community Development," large-scale Federal involvement in new town location and construction through an extensive program of guaranteed loans and grants was authorized. The Act created a Community Develop- ment Corporation in the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment (HUD) to direct the program. Planner Herman D. Ruth pointed out an opportunity for broaden- ing this Federal involvement by making public lands available for new town development The major problem has been the inability to hold and finance the land over a long period of development, the large capital outlays for basic infrastructure facilities, and the vagaries of the housing market in a changing money market... The advantage of using the federally owned public lands is the opportunity to provide lands at nominal cost [and] the control of the peripheral areas by in- suring contiguous open space to the developed metropolitan city. Samuel C. Jackson, Assistant Secretary for Metropolitan Planning, stressed the general need to predicate HUD's new towns policy on regional impact: Built into the consideration of all of the actions of the Community Develop- ment Corporation in approving projects is the factor of the impact of a new community upon the region in which it is located, whether that is a region lying wholly within a State or one that has interstate impact. We must make a find- ing of what that impact is. In addition, we must have appropriate clearances and approvals from State and local and regional planning bodies that are affected by the particular new communIty project. Managing and Exchanging Information The recent development of sophisticated techniques for projecting future land use needs and new advances in the field of information processing now make it more readily possible to link various State planning activities into an integrated national effort. Federal support of the informational aspects of land planning implies a systematic, continuous program and effective communication with State and local governments as well as universities and industry. Over the years, many Federal agencies involved in various land management programs have collected extensive data on land resources. In the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Land Management possesses data arising from its long time management of vast tracts of the public domain; the Geological Survey has developed mapping in- formation as well as mineral survey information; the Bureau of Out~ PAGENO="0042" 38 door Recreation and the National Park Service have developed recrea- tion data, and the Bureau of Reclamation has accumulated useful data on individual rivers and entire riverbasins. R~cent1y the Department has been active in deveJoping new and innovative data collection and analysis methods, most notable of which are the the various data stor- age and mapping activities to be conducted in conjunction with the earth resources satellite system, EROS. During the Committee hearings, Interior Secretary Morton, respond- ing to a question concerning the need for a central data bank, said: My opinion is that we should develop in the Department of the Interior all of the expertise that would be required that would be helpful [and] useful . . ~ to the States. We are ~1ealing here with classification methods, with methods of storing and retrieving information and . . . data. that could be useful th~ the determination of not only the inventoried areas . . . but also the methods that we are encouraging to be developed. The Department of Agriculture also is heavily involved in. gather- ing and processing land use information. The following is a committee question on this subject and the Department's response: e. What kinds of data and analyses of reso'urces and patterns pertaining to land ~se does the Departmeii~t of Agrie~dtu~e now collect or. have on hand that might be useful in a Federal land-use planning information center such as wonld be established by ~S'ection4O9(a) of the bill [2. 632].? The Department has a capability to make national and interregional land use and production projections, based on its information about soils, land use, conservation needs, cropping patterns, projected crop yields for various kinds of soils, expanded markets for agricultural and forest products, with assumptions about foreign markets and population growth and distribution. The projections capability allows study of the land use implications of a number of important issues such as ~ population. redistribution, expanded agriculture exports, major resource developments investments or restrictions on agriculture inputs. In this connection, should the use of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers used for agricultural production be restricted, there could be a serious impact on . land use and the productive capacity upon which we depend for our supply of food, feed, and fiber. In this way the projections system, serves as an analytical tool to study policy alternatives and program impacts. The research arm of the Department undertakes a variety of physical, biologi- cal and behavorial science efforts of significance to land use policies and pro- grams. The research reports and. staff assistance of these scientists will not only improve the data base but will improve the analytical capacity of policy makers. PAGENO="0043" B. PAST AND PENDING LAND TJSE LEGISLATION AND COMMITTEES' JURISDICTIONS As THEY RELATE TO LAND USE POLICY I * A BRIEF CHRONOLOGY 01? MAJOR LEGISLATION, sTATEMENTs; AND ACTIONS PERTINENT TO LAND IJSE POLICY Overthe past several decacles,iand use policy has. received increas- lug attention from the Congress which has gradually developed nu- merous, widely-differing programs and authorizatlons for land * plan- ning, management and development. Unfortunately many of, these programs-particularly those involving grants to State and local gov- *ernments for physical planning and development (highways, recrea- tion areas, etc.)-have not been effectii~e1y meshed with one another; nor have they been established at their inception with a view toward developiug consistent goals, procedures and administrative * proaches. Consequently, in the last decade attempts have been made to formulate ~ and implement new coprdination mechanisms, primarily through the process of governmental reorganization.1 This congres- sional activity has been forced in large part by the growing public awareness of land use c~onflicts being generated by urban pressures, population growth and shifts, and the needs of preserving. quality in our physical surroundings. Recei~tly, Congress has undertaken corn- prehensive reviews of the general programs rehthng to land use in ~an efFort to clarify and codify the laws enacted over many years and to bring. about more rational land planning arid control at the Federal, State, Regional and locallevels. , ~ This chronology, ~ covering the period 1944-4971, highlights some of the most significant Federal legislation, poliey.~statements and re- organization. efforts in the broad field of land use. ~ ~ . :1944 Federal-Aid Highway Act o/ /944 (P.L* `T8-521).: Congress desi~- nated a National System of Tnterstate Highways within the conti- neñtai United States nOt to exceed40,000 miles. ~ 1945 ~ Veteran$ Mortgage G'wI','antee$ (P*L. 79-268): This broad amend-. ment to the Servicemen's R~adjustrnent Act of 1~44 raised thelimit on the amount of mortgage guarantees as a major means of Federal assist~ ance to housing. Ten~porary Veterane H~nieing (P.L. 79-269): This amendment to the National Defense Housing Act of 1940 (Lanham Act) directly sub- sidized the building of temporary housing. 1Thi.s was the thai~ obJective, for example, in the establishment of t~ie Water Resources Council. . (39) PAGENO="0044" 40 1946 Federal Airport Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-377): Congress authorized the Administrator of the Civil Aeronautics Administration, in con- sultation with the War and Navy Departments, to prepare a national plan for the development of public airports to meet the needs of civil aeronautics. Administrative Recreatiov. 4utho~ity Bill (P.L. 79-633) : Congress provided c1~ v statutory ai ~rity* for the Park Service to carry on - in connection with the park system ~ation pur oses, pursuant m of othera~ Park tion anL -- an area a in Washin~ onal rec ion area. multiple u~e of water projects and the first of tI~ areas" Coordination Act (P.L. nt-wide p& icy that all ~, prevent `~ dama site. T I and ~4 Grazing Act. 1947 Resource Appraisal: The Forest Service completed a 1945-47 ap- praisál of forest resources in the nation as a whole. It concluded that the volume of sawtirnber on publicly and privately owned forests as a whole had declined 43% in the preceding 36 years, that sawtimber PAGENO="0045" 41 was being taken from the forests one-and-a-half times as fast as it was being replaced by growth, and that there was a marked deterioration in the quality as well as quantity of lumber. The apprttisal showed that only 8% of the cutting practice on private forest land was rated good or better. It concluded that there was ample forest lar~d in the U.S. for timber needs, but to meet these needs sawtimber growing stock should be built up to double the existing volume. 1948 Creation of HHFA : President Truman's IIeorgcrnization Plan No. S created the Housing and Home Finance Agency to succeed the National Housing Agency with three constituent parts : The Federal Home Loan Bank Board, the Federal Housing Administration, and the Pub- lic Housing Administration. The plan also established a National Housing Council. 1949 Housing Act of 1949 (P.L. 81-VT1) : The Act of 1949 declared a national housing goal of "a decent home and a suitable living environ- ment for every American family". Title I provided for slum clearance and community development and redevelopment ; title II provided FHA mortgage insurance authorization ; title III provided jow-rent public housing. Anderson-Mansfield Reforestation and Re~egetation Act (P.L. 81- 348): This Act provided funds for more rapid reforestation and re- vegetation of national forests and revegetation of range lands. Amendment to the l9~24 Clark-MeNary Law (P.L. 81-392) : Amend- ments to the Clark-McNary Act (the basic federal legislation for federal-state cooperation to enhance forests ~n state and private lands) provided authorization for aid to statcs in helping farmers to restock denuded lands with seedlings. 1953 Cape Hattera~s Seashore : Cape Hatteras Na~tional Seashore, N.C., authorized in 193~T, was established on Jan. 12, 1953. This was the first of a number of seashores to be set aside in a national seashore system. Submarqinal Lands : The Forest Service was assigned the manage- ment of some ~ million acres of "land utilization project" areas acquired by the Federal Government during the depression of the 1930's. Previously administered by the Soil Conservation Service the long-term policy of the Department of Agriculture looked toward ultimate disposal of these lands through addition to the national forest system. 1954 Omnibu$ Housing Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-5~i0) : This Act accom- phshed a major broadening of the urban development program initiated in 1949-renaming it "urban renewal"-and contained pro- visions to elIminate abuses. The urban renewal program provided matching grants to the states to assist communities with populations under 25,000 in planning. It authorized a revolving fund for interest- free advances to communities to plan public works-such advances to be repaid when the works were put under construction. PAGENO="0046" 42 Recreatio~i and PubZic Purposes A ct (P1. 83-387) : This Act au- ,thorizecl the disposal. ~ of BLM~administered lands ~ to state or local governments, and ta qualified nonprofit groups, ~ for recreational or other public purposes such as playgrounds, campsites, bOating, swim- ming areas, hunting and fishing areas, ski runs, trails and `parks; and for schools, hospitals, sewage plants, waterworks and so forth. Watershed Protection and Flood Preventio~,i Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-566): After a pilot program in 1953 Congress provided for a permanent small watershed program to be carried out by the Soil Conservation Service. The program providing for a coordinated, balanced development of soiländ water resources ifi areas up to 25O~OOO acres/project. 1955 Federal Airport Act Revis~on. (P.L. 84-211) : Amended the 1946 Act to authorize specific grants with which the states could contract for airport development. S Housing 4mendn~ents of 1955 (P1. 84-345) : This act authorized funds for loans to public agencies. for planning community facilities and increased monies for slum clearance and urban renewal. `Multiple `Surface ` Use Act (P.L. 84-167) :` This act was designed to end abuse ~f government lands being developed under the pretense of mining. This law made clear that until and unless a patent was ob- tamed, ` all timber, grazing and other surface resources' remained the property of the U.S. Government. S S 1956 S Small Watershed Amendments (P.L. 84-1018) : Amendments per- mitted small watershed projects to be undertaken not only for flood prevention and irrigation purposes but for other purposes such as municipal and industrial water supply, fish and wildlife development, and recreation. S Great Plains Co~iwervp1ion Act (P.L. 84-1021) : This Act author- ized contracts for. up to 10 years with farmers who shifted farmland into programs' to combat soil ero~iort. A major goal was ~to convert land unsuitable for continuous cultivationto permanent vegetation. Highway Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627) : Congress authorized the big- gest roadbuilding program in history and certain high- way-user fees and taxes for a Highway Trust Fund to finance the National System of Highways initiated in 1944. S S Omnibus HousMg Act of'1956 (P1. 84-1020) : This Act doubled urban planning grant authorization to $10 million and increased the scope of the urban renewal programs. Our Vanishing Shoreline : With funds donated by private sources the Park Service in 1954-55 undertook a survey of potential seashore recreational areas along the TJ~S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. "Our Van- ishing Shoreline" was tlieflrst of three major studies on this subject. It recommended that Federal, state, and local government agencies acquire as soon as possible at least half of the 640 miles of recreational seashore available for public recreational use. It also recommended acquisition of hinterland marsh and swamp areas for bird and animal development near the shorelines, and acquisition of plant-animal com- PAGENO="0047" 43 of h and WL_~~~B re- states and other munities of great ecological interest along the shore. It designated 16 areas as th~ "choiceststjll available". AgrieuZturai Actof 1956 (P1. 84-54Q) : The soil bank conservation program authorized financial assistance to farmers for converting general cropland to conservation uses, including the planting of trees. This program was intended to help assure an adequate future s~ipply of timber by helping. to stock more than 50 million acres of federal and n~on-federal lands. Although its primary purpose was the retire- ment of land from crop production for the direct and express purpose of reducing farm surpluses immediately, the ~Oil bank constituted an early effort to effect shifts in. land use to assure ~that land woubi be used for purposes for which it was really needed. 1958 tonal sites in orderto ( the' Interior ap- ~- ~ for recreational ~ cy:' the Bureati of Land ~ a special effOrt to identify sites mitable for recreational use. Sates, 1~ but under the state- was to take the lead in )articuiarly along lakeshores ~er them to other agencies for stablished as a ~ial forests ider t use and s ective developing five basic resources: oui imber, watershed, and fish and wildlife resou e Secretary c - ed an order 1 1 ~ ntensive PAGENO="0048" 44 development of the West by offering inducements to settlers, railroads, etc., in the form of free lands. Since the early 20th century, however, the national policy had increasingly been moving in the direction of re- tainin~ and managing the public lands as a national resource, rather than disposing of them. Mr. Kennedy's Feb. 23 statement, together with TJdall's, established the policy that henceforth, the public lands would not be sold and opened to settlement in the West unless the applicant could show that the use to which he would put the land was at least equal in value to possible Government uses if the BLM retained the land. It meant a tightening of general administrative procedures, with the view toward blocking people from buying or obtaining public lands for land speculation or for agriculture in seriously water-short areas. It meant that, in classifying land in the West, the BLM would not classify areas as open to homestead entry if they were particularly valuable for some other purpose, such as future recreational develop- ment ; and that the BLM would try to assure that all public lands, whether disposed of or retained in federal lands, would be put to uses that would produce substantial benefits for the nation. Mr. Kennedy said he was directing the BLM to develop a policy of "balanced usage designed to reconcile the conflict uses-grazing, for- estry, recreation, wildlife, urban development and minerals." In effect, he was formally calling for a multiple use policy for the public lands. Tie also called for soil conservation and revegetation. Certain aspects of the policy enunciated?by Mr. Kennedy Feb. 23- retention and multiple-use development of the public lands-had been touched upon by Secretary Udall in a Feb. 1, 1961 statement outlining land policies for his department. In general, tTdall said : (1) The BLM would insist on receiving full value when selling portions of the public lands. The idea that public lands should be disposed of at low cost, already fading, would be for- mally ended. (2) Leases, sales and other dispositions of public lands would be permitted only where they served some sound public purpose, and in accord with the objective of assuring a balanced use of land to produce maximum public benefits, and in addition, every effort would be made to avoid disposal of public lands to land speculators. ( 3) Public lands which were marginal for agriculture, or which were ~ more valuable for some other use, would not be opened to agricultural settlement under the homestead laws. (In a related development, the BLM adopted the policy of not opening to agricultural settlement any public lands in areas with declining water tables, lest farming in such areas destroy underground water resources.) (4) Laiids which could not be properly developed under existing public lands laws would be retained in federal ownership pending en- actment of appropriate legislation. Housing Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-70) : This Act expanded the categories for mortgage loans that could be insured by the Federal Housing Ad- ministration and subsidized through direct loans at lower rates the construction of housing for the elderly. It authorized funds of $2 bil- lion for urban renewal, $25 million for mass transport, $55 million for urban planning aid and $50 million in federal grants to states and ! PAGENO="0049" 45 localities to pay up to 30 percent of the cost of acquisition of land in and around urban centers to create "open space" areas for recreational, conservation, scenic and historical purposes. Cape Cod National Sea~/iore Bill (P.L. 87-126) : This bill was prece- dent-making in two respects: it was the first park-type unit in the Na- tional Park System to be acquired largely through purchase and con- demnation of private land in the desired area; and it was the first unit to be acquired following the recommendations of the three major 1955-1960 seashore studies. .7962, Conservatio~ conservat~ on were made U: a major problem in the ~water was the m acreage u PAGENO="0050" I I 1963 46 Billboard8 (P1. 88-157) : Congress passed the Federal-Aid High- way Amendments Act which extended for two years the program of federal rneentrves for billboard control along the Interstate Highway System. ~ ~ ~ Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (P.L. 88-29) : Congress gave statu- tory authority to the Bureau of Recreation which had been created by administrative aètion in tile Department of the InterIor, following the issuance of the Report of the Outdoor Recreation Re~öurces Commis- sion. This Act created a centralized planning agency with responsi- bility for studying and encouraging coordinated and rapid develop- merit o:t recreation facilities at all levels ~ of government. The agency wascharged with formulating and maintaining a comprehensive na- tionwide plan for outdoor rec~reation development by federal, state and local age~icies. 196k Urban Mas$ Tran~ortatjon Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-365,) : This Act authorized the Administrator of th~ Housing and Home Finance Agency to make grants covering two-thirds of net cost of a projeèt when he determines that assistance was needed to carry out a program for a unified or officially coordinated urban transportation system as part~ of comprehensiYely-planned development of an urban area. Housing Act of 1964 (P.L. 88--560) : This Act set minimum housing standards for federal aid, authorized urban ren~walprojects for "air- rights developtheii~s" to provide elevated sites for low- or moderate- income housing (air rights projects would be undertaken in an area which is not itself a slum but consists primarily of land in highways, railways or similar facilities which have a blighting influence) ; au- thorized urban planning aid to areas where employment ópportuni- t1~s were reduced because of withdrawal of a federal installation ; au- thorized urban planning aid to any depressed area without regard to population which qualified for assistance under the area redevelop- ment program ; authorized additional $20 million in advances for public works planning ; established a new system for federal-state training and res~rch to develop skills in community development; and authorized a fellowship program in cityplanning and urban and hbusin~ specialists. Lan2l and Water. Con~erration Fund Act (P.L. 88-578) : This Act established a special federal fñnd to help finance accelerated acquisi- tion of outdoor recreation areas by federal and state agehcies. The fund was to receive revenues from fOur federal sources : 1) admission, entrance and recreation user fees which the Land and Water Conser- ~vation Fund authorized to be imposed by the President at existing facilities opea rted by a number of federal agencies ; 2) net proceeds from the sale of certain federal surplus real property; 3) proceeds from theexisting..2 percent: net ta~on motorboat fuels, which had pre- viously, gone into the Highway Trust Fund ; 4) appropriations aver- aging no more than $60 million a y~ar. Public Land Law Review Com~missjon (P.L. 88-606) Congress cre- ated the Public Land Law fleview COmmission to study existing pub- lic land laws and to formulate recommendations for over-all revision PAGENO="0051" 47 ~f existing laws and to establIsh firm principles of national pOlicy for th~ management of the public lands. ~ ~ iYatio~al TVilderness P'iieservatio% Sy,steni (P.L. 88-577) ; This Act designated as part of a national wilderness preservationsystem ap- proximately 9.1 million acres of national forest lands which, by admin- istrative action, had previously been classified as "wild", "wilderness" or "canoe" areas and directed the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to study areas of the national forest systeth classified as "prim- iti~v~'*' and the various wild areas of the national park system and national wildlife refuges and game ranges to determine which of those areas were suitable for addition to the National Wilderness Preserva- tion System. Addition of such areas to the National Wilderness Preser- vation System would be permitted only through an act of Congress. O2ark Scenic Riverways (P.L. . 88-492) : This Act established the first riverway to be added to the National Park System. ~ Congress authorized the Secretary of the Interior to acquire 65,000 acres of privately owned lahd, with additional lands to be added frOm govern- ment sources. The Act also permitted hunting and fishing in zones not set aside for publi~safety. AppaiacMan Regional Development Act (P.L. 89-4) : This Act au- thorized over a billion dollars for the development of the economically depressed 12-State region. Funds were allocated for additional high- way construction, conservatiOn, timber aid, mining area restoration, water resource survey, sewage treatment and expenses of local develop- merit districts, and research. Public Works and Economic Developrn~ent Act (P.L. 89-136) : Title I funds were development grants for facilities such as water wOrks, water and sewer lines, waste treatment plants and health facilities; streets and roads needed for commercial and industrial development; harbor facilities, reservoirs, railroad sidings, airports and industrial parks (land improvement and site utilities) ; tourist facilities ; vOca- tional schools ; and land ~forthe abovc. Title V encouraged the Sta~tes to set up multi-state regional cornmis~ions to planand foster economm development programs in depressed regions .and.p ~. rovided funds ~for Federal technical advice and planning aid to the commissions. The Department of Ho'w~ing and Urban ~ Developmeiit (P.L. 89- 114) : Congress created this Cabinet-level department with ~ll the powers, functions and duties ~ of the Housing and Home Finance Agency The Housing Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-117) : This Act established new urban development features hieluded : uniform land acquisition proce- dures ; ~ matching grants for construction of basic public water and sewer facilities ; increased grants for open-space acquisition and pro- vided a new program of grants to provide open space. for parks and playgrounds in urban areas ; authorized grants to local public bodies to prnvide programs of urban beautification and improvement ; ex- pandeththe loan progr~tm for rural residence loans to all age groups; directed the AdministratOr to study .and report on methods of reduc- ing the loss to homeowners whose property depreciates because of proximity to airports~ Highway Beautification Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-285): This Act au- thorized a new prqgram to beautify the nation's federal-aid highways PAGENO="0052" 48 through removal of junkyards and landscaping of areas adjacent to the highways. The program was to be financed through the Treasury rather than the Highway Trust Fund. Although no funds were au- thorized in the 1967-68 period the bill established maintenance or restoration of natural beauty as a national goal. Water Resources Planning Act (P.L. 89-80) : Congress enacted this legislation to provide for federal and regional coordination of plans for water resources development. It established the Federal Water Resources Council ; directed the Council to evaluate regional and river basin plans and to coordinate the administration of federal water programs; authorized the President to establish regional fed- eral-state river basin commissions to prepare and keep up-to-date comprehensive water resource plans ; and directed each commission to coordinate federal, state, interstate, local and private water develop- ment plans for the basin ; to prepare and keep up-to~date a comprehen- sive joint development plan to consider alternatives ; and to estab- lish priorities for the basic data for planning. All plans ~re to be sub- mitted to the Water Resources Council. The Federal Water Project Recrea~ion Act (P.L. 89-72) : Congress established a uniform federal-local cost-sharing formula for recrea- tion facilities and fish and wildlife enhancement features at federal water projects. It provided that recreation and fish and wildlife en- hancement be given "full consideration" in the investigation and plan- ning of any federal water project. Rural Water Systems (P.L. 89-240) : This Act created a new pro- gram of $55 million in grants for development of water supply and waste disposal systems in rural areas passed Congress. An additional $5 million was authorized in grants to help public agencies prepare comprehensive plans for development of water supply or sewage dis- posal systems in rural areas. 1966 Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 .(P.L. 89-754) : Congress enacted a broad new program of community renewal in TJ.S. cities for the orderly development of metropolitan areas. The Act established a three year $1.2 billion "demonstration cities" plan which envisioned a restructuring of the "total environ- ment" of the residents in the "demonstration neighborhoods", a new program for federal land development mortgage insurance for de- velopers of entire "new towns", and a plan for "incentive" grants to encourage comprehensive and current area-wide planning. Department of Transportat~ou (P.L. 89-670) : This act cre- ated the Department of Transporation as the 12th Cabinet-level department. Congress enacted a bill amending the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 (P.L. 89-562) which authorized the use of grant funds for : planning and technical studies preparatory to construction and improved operation of mass transit systems and for grants to state and local public bodies to cover up to two-thirds of the cost of plan- ning, engineering, designing and technical studies of urban mass trans- portation systems to be included in coordinated programs for develop- met of entire urban areas. PAGENO="0053" not r use of unless a program included all possible alteriia~ives and sought to minimize any harm to a park or site resulting from high- way use. 1967 Rent iSupplemente and Model Citiee (P.L. 90-121) Congress re- named th~ "demonstration cities" program and appropriated $312 million for the program. 1968 Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-448) : The third major housing bill under PresidentJohnson had fourteen titles, several of which had significant effects on land use : title IV-New Community Land Development, title V-Urban Renewal, title VI~- Urban Planning and Facilities, title VU-Urban Mass Transporta- tion. This Act authorized $1 billion for the model cities program for fiscal year 1970 ; $12 million for model cities planning grants in fiscal year 1969 ; and increased the authorization of the grants for demon- stration projects from $10 million to $20 million. Department of T~aneportation: President Johnson proposed a re- organization plan (Plan No. 2) to shift urban mass transit programs ~ from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the De- partment of Transportation. Congress did not oppose the plan. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 increased the interstate mile- age from 41,000 to 42,000 and extended the completion date ; it directed the Secretary of Transportation to preserve parkland and historic sites considered from encroachment ; established a revolving fund for ad- vance acquisition of rights-of-way, as a means of acquiring land less expensively ; retained the 10-percent penalty against construction funds in states which do not have a beautification program ; required hearings on proposed highway * route locations to consider proposed locations' impact and effect on community. environment as well as the existing criterion, economic impact. National Trails Systems (P.L. 90-543) : Congress completed action on an Administrative proposal to establish a nationwide systeth of trails. The bill created three categories of trails : national scenic trails, national recreation trails, and connecting or side trails. The scenic trails would be located in remote areas and would be reserved primarily for hiking and camping. Recreation trails would be located near urban areas and would be developed for various uses, such as bicycling and jogging. Connecting or side trails would provide additional points of public access to the two types of trails or would provide connections between such trails. The bill authorized initial appropriations, from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, of up to $5 million for ]and acquisition along the Appalachian Trail and $500,000 for the Pacific PAGENO="0054" I Crest Trail. These two trails wei~e the only two initially placed in the system. ~ ~ , ~ TVild and Scenic River$ System~ (P1. 90-542) : Congress completed action on a bill establishing a National Wild and Scenic Rivers Sys- 1;em to preserve. outstanding stretches of rivers from, incompatible. water resources development, pollution, or commercialization. The bill established three classifications in the system : wild river areas, essen- tially primitive and ~cessib1e only by trail ;~~cenic river areas, largely primitive but accessible by road; and recreational river areas, having sOme development and readily accessible by car. Eight rivers were j~1aced in the system. Public Land Law Review Coinm~i8sion (P.L. 90-213) : The work of this commission was extended for 18 months, until December31, 1970. Land and TVater Con~se~,ation Fu~nd (P.L. 90-401) : Additions to the Fund, up to an annual $200 million annually, were authorized. . ~ E$tuary Pre8er'vation Study (P.L. 90-454) : Congress authorized the initiation of a program to preserve the nation's estuaries. The areas to be preserved. include coastalmarshlands, bays, soimds, seaward areas, lagoons and the land and waters of the Great Lakes,~ The report by the Department~ of Interior was di~e. by January, 3Q, 1970 and was to in- dude legislative recommendations. ~ ~ . ~ . National Water Commis$ion (P.L, 90-515) : Congress after two years of debate established this. commission to make a non-federal comprehensive study of water restrnrces problems. ~ 1969 ~, . . . ~ . Housing . and Urban Development Act (P;L. 91-152) : The 1968 Housing and Urban Development Act authorized the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to set up ~ flood ifisurance program which would pro~vide insur'tnce for flood damage in those states which . adopted land us~ practices conaistent with the wise use of areas sub- ject tO. flooding. The 1968 Act provided for detailed studies to estab- lish risk premium * raths. In order to provide flood insurance ~t the earliest possible time, Congress included in ~the Housing and TJrban Development Act to 1969 1~I~emergency pro~rarn to continue through December 31, 1971. The new program authorized the Secretary of HUD to provide flood insurance on' a~n emergency basis without first determining the individual community actuarial rates called for in the 1968 Act. The effect of the new program has been to permit the offer- . ing of flood insurance at chargeable rates to e~isting structures a:nd up to the subsidized limits specified in t~he original Act in communi- ~ ties where actuarial studies had not been completed. At the end of . 1970, 401 communities had been declared eligible for coverage. Great Piain$Conservation Progranv Eciitension (P.L. 91-118) : The Great Plains Conservation Program was ext~nded by . this Act to December 31, 1981. The program, established in 1956, authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into cost-sharing contracts with op- erators and owners of land In the Great Plains area to carry out soil, and water conservation practices. it iS aimed at obtaining shifts and improvements in land uses, based on the varying capability of the land. National Environm.ental Policy Act (P.L. ~1-190) : By its passage of the National Environmental Policy Act, the 91st Congress departed PAGENO="0055" F ~: 5]. from the traditional single-solution treatment of resource develop- : ment problems and set the stage for full-scale action to restore and maintain the quality of the natural, as well as the manmade, environ- ment. The prime significance of the Act centers in its expressed deter- mination to move the Nation in a comprehensive manner toward the accommodation of the goals of economic development and preserva- tion of a quality environment. By proclaiming the responsibility of the Federal Government to promote the restoration and maintenance of the human environment, the Act provides a framework for the formulation of specific legislative measures to deal with a ~ wide variety of future land and environmental problems. ~ How$ing and Urban Development Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-609) : This comprehensive legislation embodied several sections ~ pertrn~nt to land use policy. ~Title VII consolidated and simplified administration of the open space programs to reduce costs to HUD and also to State and local agencies applying for assistance. Another section, the Urban Growth and New Community Development Act of 1970, set forth specific goals to guide future urban growth and also provided in- creased Federal assistance to public agencies and private developers for the creation of new communities. Airport and Airways Developnwnt Act (P.L. 91-258) : T1~is Act stipulates that the Department Of Transportation must take into ac- count environmental values when considering the siting of future air- ports ; the requirement was designed to avoid repetition of such con- troversies as' that surrounding the recent plan to locate. a large air ~ facility near parklands in the southern Florida Everglades. Similar provisions were included in the Urban Mass Transportation Act (P.L. 91-453). Federal-Aid Higii~viay Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-605) : The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 sought continuation of the Federal highway program. by : Extending the Interstate System for 2 years ; continuing primary and secondary sy~tems and their urban extensions ; providing ongoing aid to States in the face of possible reduced interstate alloca- tions ; creating an urban highway system ;. and improving the utiliza- tion of highways as mass movers' of people. In addition to these major provisions, however, the Act contained several provisions of impor- tance to the interface between transportation and ~ the environment. Section 136 of the Act directs- the Secretary of the Department of Transportation (DOT) to promulgate guidelines "~ ~ * designed to assure that possible adverse economic, social, and environmental ef- fects relating to any proposed project ~ ~ ~ be fully con~~dered in the development of the project. These guidelines are designed to in- sure that the environmental factors are given consideration, and con- troversy during planning, design, and construction stages be reduced. rllhis latter point is reinforced by another section in the Act that in- sures open and responsive hearings which give consideration to local needs and wishes. A beginning was made toward the creation of integrated tr~nspor- tation systems with a provision in the act which designates "critical" transportation corridors and regions. The Secretary of DOT may des- ignate the regions and corridors when movement inthese areas reaches critical volumes. rfhis would enable him t~ undertakeplanning to ac- PAGENO="0056" 52 celerate deve1opi~nt of transportation systems to meet critical needs. He is also empowered by the Act to establish planning bodies with the States to assist in development of coordinated transportation planning. In response to another problem, the Act calls for the issuance of guidelines to control soil erosion in connection with highway construc- tion projects. Resources Recovery Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-512) : This Act, among among other things, provides for a 2-year national disposal site study which will list methods now used in solid waste disposal and recom- mend new methods ; it will inventory possible disposal sites including potential sites for hazardous substances. A separate provision of the Act calls for the formulation of a National Materials Policy by a Na- tional Commission on Materials Policy appointed by the President. The report of the Commission is to be completed by June 1973. Federal Assistance for Resource Conservation and Development Projects (P.L. 91-343) : The development of resources for outdoor recreation in rural areas was advanced by passage of an amendment to the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act. The amendment authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to provide financial assistance for install- ing public fish and wildlife or recreational development projects an- thorized by the Bankhead-Jones Act. Such assistance is limited to one- half the cost of the land, easements, rights-of-way and minimum basic public facilities required to develop projects not exceeding 75,000 acres. Agriculture Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-524) : In passing the Agricultural Act of 1970, the 91st Congress outlined the first steps of a plan to achieve rural development. Title 9 of the Act committed the Congress to the establishment of rural-urban balance in the provision of govern- ment services, and called for a series of reports as a first step in formu- lating programs of rural development. Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Amendments (P.L. 91-- 485) : This amendment to the Land Water Conservation Fund Act increased its funding capacity from $200 to $300 million. The amend- ment also provided for the transfer of excess Federal lands to States and their political subdivisions for recreational purposes. Land trans- fers may be made by the Secretary of the Interior with or without payment. Commission on Population Growth and the American Future (P.L. 91-213) : A predicted population of 300 million Americans within the next 30 years prompted the President to recommend a major study on the economic, social, and governmental requirements of population growth, authorizing it to investigate the impact of population growth expansion on natural resources and various means of achieving a population level suited for the Nation's environmental, natural re- sources and other needs. 1971-7~ Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (P.L. 92-203): The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act provided Alaska's 53,000 Eskimos, Aleuts and Indians with $462.5 million in Federal grants and $500 million from State and Federal mineral revenues. The Act also estab- lished Native State and Regional Corporations to administer the PAGENO="0057" ~iona1 provisions s ving: (`a) A Joint } hecL(b) T ~cretar~y 53 owing ccess and ~t to ~ ~)orpora- is protected. PAGENO="0058" I 54 STANDING CQI~LMITTEES IN TIlE SENATE AND HotisE: JUEISDICTTON AND SiirBco~r~fJTTEI~s INVOLVED Wi~n LAND USE POLICY HO1JSE Agriculture Com/n-&ittee: Crop insurance and soil conservation Forestry in general, and forest reserves other than those created from the public domain Plant industry, soils, and agricultural engineering Rural electrification Subcommittee on Forests Special Subcommittees on Conservation and credit, family farms, and rural clevel6prnent Apprepr'ku~ion$. .~2om~rn~ittee: Subcommittees on: Agriculture Independent Offices and Department of Housing arid Urban De~ velopment Int~rior and Related Agencies Military Construction Public Works State, Justice, Commerce, and th.e Judiciary Transpoi'tation Armed Services Committee: Ammunition depots ; forts ; arsenals ; Army,. Navy, and Air Force reservatioi~ and establishments Conservation~ . development, and use of naval petroleum and oil shale reserves Special Subcommittee on Real Estate Banking and Currency : Public and private housing Subcommittee on Housing Interior and in~sular Affd'lrs Forest reserves and national parks created from the public clpmain Forfeiture of land grants and alien ownership, including alien ownership of mineral lands Geological survey Interstate compaqts relating to apportionnient of waters for ~irri- gation purposes Irrigation and reclamation, including water supply for reclama- tioll projects,. and easements of public lands for irrigation proj- ects, and acquisition of private iand~ when necessary to corn- plete irrigation projects ~ Measures relating to the care, education, and management of Indians, including the care and allotment pf Indian lands and general and specific measures relating to claims which are paid out of Indian funds Measures relating to insular possessions of t?he U.S., except mat- ters affecting the revenue and appropriataons Military parks and battlefields Mineral land laws and claims and entries thereunder Mineral resources of the public lands PAGENO="0059" ~55 Mining interests generally Mining schools and experimental stations Petroleum conservation on the public lands and conservation of the radium supply in the United States Preservation of prehistoric rivers and objects of interest on the public domain Public lands generally, including entry, easements, and grazing thereon Relations of the United States with Indians and the Indian tribes Subcommittees on. Indian Affairs Irrigation and Reclamation Mines and Mining National Parks and Recreation Public Lands Territorial and Insular Affairs Interstate and Foreign Commerce Regulation of interstate and foreign transportation, except trans- portation by water not subject to the jurisdiction of the Inter- state Commerce Commission Interstate oil compacts; and petroleum and natural gas, except on the public lands Regulation of interstate transmission of power, except the instal- lation of connections between government water projects Inland waterways Subcommittees on: Communications and Power Transportation and Aeronautics Judiciary: State an.d Territorial boundary lines Special Subcommittee on Submerged Lands Merchant Marine and. Fisheries: Navigation and the laws relating thereto, including pilotage Coast and geodetic surveys The Panama Canal and the maintenance and operation of the Panama Canal, including the administration, sanitation, and government of the Canal Zone: and interoceanic canals generally Fisheries and wildlife, including research, restoration refuges, and conservation Subcommittees on: Coast Guard, Coast and Geodetic Survey and Navigation Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation Panama Canal Public Works: * Flood control and improvement of rivers and harbors Public works for the benefit of navigation, including bridges and dams (other than international bridges and dams) Water power Oil and other pollution of navigable waters Public buildings and occupied or improved grounds of the United States generally I I PAGENO="0060" 56 Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on: Hospitals Housing Measures relating to the purchase of sites and construction of post offices, customhouses, Federal courthouses, and government building within the District of Columbia Construction or reconstruction, maintenance, and care of the buildings and grounds of the Botanic gardens, the Library of Congress, and the Smithsonian Institution Public reservations and parks within the District of Columbia, including Rock Creek Park and the Zoological Park Measures relating to the construction or maintenance of roads and post roads, other than appropriations therefor; Subcommittees on: Flood Control Public Buildings and Grounds Rivers and Harbors Roads Watershed Development Special Subcommittee on the Federal-Aid Highway Program Wa~js and Mean$: Transportation of dutiable goods Revenue measures relating to the insular possessions SENATE Agriculture and Forestry Agriculture colleges and experimental stations Forestry in general and forest reserves ; other than those created from the public domain Plant industry, soils, and agricultural engineering Rural electrification Crop insurance and soil conservation Subcommittees on: Agricultural Credit, and Rural Electrification Soil Conservation and Forestry Special Subcommittee on Watershed Projects Appropriations: Subcommittees on: Agriculture and related agencies Department of Interior and related agencies Military construction Public Works Department of State, Justice, Commerce, and related agencies Transportation Judiciary and Arnwd Services: Forts, arsenals, military reservations, and navy yards Maintenance and operation of the Panama Canal, including the administration, sanitation, and government of the Canal Zone Conservation, development, and use of naval petroleum and oil shale resrves PAGENO="0061" 57 Subcommittees on: Military construction National stockpile and Naval Petroleum Reserves Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs: Public and private housing Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs Commerce Regulation of . interstate railroads, buses, trucks, and pipelines Communication by telephone, telegraph, radio, and television Navigation and the laws relating thereto Coast and geodetic survey Except as provided in paragraph (c) [Armed Services Committee Jurisdiction], the Panama Canal and interoceanjc canals generally Inland waterways Fisheries and wildlife, including research, restoration, refuges, and conservation Subcommittees on Aviation Communication Energy, Natural Resources, and the Environment Subcommittee on Surface transportation Finance: Transportation of dutiable goods Revenue measures relating to the insular possessions Interior and Insular Affairs: Public lands generally, including entry, easements, and grazing thereon Mineral resources of the public lands Forfeiture of land grants and alien ownership, including alien ownership of mineral lands Forest reserves and national parks created from the public domain Military parks and battlefields, aud national cemeteries Preservation of prehistoric rivers and objects of interest on the . public domain Measures relating generally to the insular possessions of the United States except those affecting their revenue and appro- priations Irrigation and reclamation, including water supply for reclama- tion projects, and easements of public lands for irrigation projects Interstate compacts relating to apportionment.. of waters for ir- rigation purposes Mining interests general Mineral land laws and claims and entries thereunder Geological survey Mining schools and experimental stations Petroleum conservation and conservation of the radium supply in the United States Relations of the United States with the Indian and the Indian tribes Measures relating to the care, education, and management of In- dians, including the care and allotment of Indian lands and PAGENO="0062" general and special measures out of Indian funds Subcommittees on: Indian Affairs Minerals, materials, and fuels Parks and Recreation Public Lands Territories and Insular Affairs Water and power resources Special Subcommittees on: Outer Continental Shelf Legislative Oversight eJudi~iary: State and Territorial boundary lines Interstate and compacts generally Labor and Public Welfare: Measures relating to education, labor or public welfare generally Public Works: Flood control and improvementof rivers and harbors Public works for the ben~fit of navigation, and bridges and dams (other than international bridges and dams) Water power Oil and other pollution of navigable waters ~ Public buildings and occupied or improved grounds of the United States generally Measures relating to the purchases of sitè~ and construction of post offices, customhouses, Federal courthouses, and government buildings within the District of Columbia~ Measures relating to the construction or reconstruction, mainte- nance, and care of the buildings, and grounds of the Botanic gardens, the Library of Congress, and the Smithsonian Institution Public reservations and parks within D~C. including ROck Creek Park and theZoologicalPark ~ Measures relating to construction or maintenance of roads and post roads, air ~pollution control measures; disaster relief; eco- nomics development; environmental pollution control measures Subcommittees on: Air and Water Pollution Flood Control-River find Harbors Public buildings and grounds Public roads Special Uom4rtittee on Aging: Subcommittee on Housing for the Elderly, (does not report legislation) JOINT COMMITTEES Atomic Energy: ". . shall thake continuing studies of the activities of the Atomic Energy Commission and of problems relating to the development, use, and control of atomic energy." I 58 1 relating to claims which are paid PAGENO="0063" 59 3. BiLLS IN TilE 9 1ST CONGRESS PERTINENT TO LAND USE POLICY ( From a Congre~sionaI Research Service report published in the Report on S. 3354, National Land Use Policy Act, Committee on In- tenor and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, Report No. 91-1435, Decem- berl4,1970.) Broad interest in the problems of guiding the future use and develop- ment of land resources in large regions, States, and the country as a whole was manifested in the 91st Congress. The principal objective of much of the diverse `legislation in this field is to accommodate new growth, required by population increases and economic expansion, without doing irreparable damage to our natural environment or caus- ing serious conflicts on various levels of government and between corn- peting land uses (e.g., airports and national parks ; power plants and amenity preservation ; urban growth and the protection of the best of our agricultural land) . The following list of seiected bills indicates that legislation on this subject was referred to twelve committees of both Houses of Congress. Some of the bills deal with the inventorying or setting aside of sites and resources for industrial and public uses, Others stress the im- proved coordination of land planning activities on an intergovern- mental basis. Still others propose expanded research relating to land management, the laying down of proper environmental criteria or guidelines, and' the establishment of new funding arrangements to in- fluence future land, use trends. PAGENO="0064" 3351 60 SENATE Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs (Messrs. Murphy and Cranston) Enables the States and the Federal agencies involved in land use activIties to establish machinery for comprehensive land use plan- ning which would incorporate etwironmental as well as economic considerations. Provides for grants-in-aid to the States to develop and im- plement statewide land use plans. Directs the President to reduce Federal grant-in-aid funds with respect to States which do not develop, implement or maintain statewide land use plans. Expands the present Water Resources Council into a Land and Water Resources Council to administer the Federal program. Declares a public interest in the open beaches of the Nation. Provides for the protection of such interest and for the acquisition of ease- ments pertaining to such seaward beaches and for the orderly management and control thereof. Provides for the termination of mineral leases in the area of the Outer Continental Shelf seaward of the Santa Barbara State oil drilling sanctuary in the State of California. S. 3390 (Mr. Jackson) Enables States or their political subdivisions to acquire Federal surplus real property at little or no cost. Authorizes the Administrator of General Services, at his discretion, to assign to the Secretary of the Interior for disposal, such surplus real prop- erty as is recommended by the Secretary of the Interior as needed for use as a public park or recreation area. Provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall develop and promulgate regulations containing criteria by which he will determine which of the public lands shall be: (a) disposed of because they are (1) required for the orderly growth and development of a community; or (2) are chiefly valuable for residential, commercial, agricultural (exclusive of lands chiefly valuable for grazing S. 3354 (Mr. Jackson) S. 3044 (Mr. Yarborough) S. S. 1708 (Mr. Jackson et al.) S. 3468 (Mr. Scott et al.) PAGENO="0065" 1830 (Mr. Jackson et al.) and raising forage crops), industrial, or public uses or development; or (b) retained, at least during this period, in Federal owner- ship and managed for (1) domestic livestock grazing; (2) fish and wildlife development and utilization; (3) industrial development; (4) mineral production; (5) occupancy; (6) outdoor recreation; (7) timber production; (8) watershed protection; (9) wilderness preservation; or (10) preservation of public values that would be lost if the land passed from Federal ownership. Provides for the cooperation between the Secre- tary of the Interior and the States with respect to the future regulation of surface mining. Establishes a national mining and minerals policy to promote the wise and efficient use of mineral resources. Gives the Secretary of the Interior the duty to implement the mining and minerals policy. Creates marine sanctuaries from leasing pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act in areas off the coast of California adjacent to State owned submerged lands when such State suspends leasing of such submerged lands for mineral pur- poses. To preserve, protect, develop, restore and make accessible the lake areas of the Nation by establishing a national lakes area system and authorizing a program of lake and lake areas research. Provides for the regulation of present and future surface and strip mining and reclamation of surface and strip mined areas, Provides for the protection, development and enhancement of the public recreation values of the public lands. 61 LRS-2 S. 524 (Mr. Jackson) S. 719 (Mr. Allott et al.) S. 3093 (Mr. Cranston et al.) S. S. 3444 (Mr. Nelson) Provides for the settlement of native land claims in Alaska. S. 3491 (Mr. Nelson) S. 3389 (Mr. Jackson) 75-793 0 - 72 - 5 PAGENO="0066" S. 1075 (P.L. 91-190) (Mr. Jackson et al.) Provides a declaration of national environmental policy which Set national goals for environmental management and established supplementary operating procedures for all Federal agencies to follow, in planning and decision making which have an impact on man's environment. Authorizes environmental research and data gathering. Establishes a three- member Council of Environmental Quality Advisers in the Executive Office of the President. Provides for the preparation' of an Annual Environmental Quality Report which, among other things, will document changes in the natural envirànment and define the adequacy of natural resources for ful- filling human and economic requirements of the Nation in the light of population increases. Committee on Public Works S. 3181 (Mr. Proxmire et al.) Encourages the formation of permanent regional water management associations which are responsible for the preparation and development of comprehensive pollution control plans for all or part of a river basin or parts-thereof that is consistent with or part of a comprehensive river basin water' and re- lated use plan for the area. Extends the Appalachian regional development pro- gram for two additional years. Extends for two years Title V of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 pursuant to which five regional commissions have been established: the Ozarks region, the Upper Great Lakes, the New - England region, the Coastal Plains region, and the Four Corners region in the Southwest. Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to enter into agreements with the States for the purpose of carrying out one or more pilot pro- grams to~ determine the best means of accomplish- ing the control of outdoor advertising along Federal-aid highways. 62 LRS-3 S. 1072 (Mr. Randolph et al.) S. 1442 (Mr. Moss) PAGENO="0067" 63 LRS-4 S. 2005 (Mr. Boggs Title of proposed amendment would be cited as et al.) the National Materials Policy Act of 1969. Enhances environmental quality and conserves materials through utilization of resources and technology more efficiently, anticipation of future materials requirements of the Nation and the world, and mak±ng recommendations on the supply, use, recovery and disposal of materials. Establishes a 7-member commission on materials policy which would be charged with a full study of a possible national materials policy. S. 3042 (Mr. Gravel et al.) ~ Establishes a 15-member Commission to undertake a comprehensive investigation and study of the use of undergrQund nuclear energy. S. 3183 (Mr. Boggs Establishes a national policy for the effective et al.) management and protection of the coastal zone. Provides for a co~perative program between the Federal and coastal state governments. Autho- rizes the Secretary of the Interior to make grants to the coasta'. states for developing a comprehensive managemeflt program for the coastal zone. Upon approval by the Secretary of a coastal zone's management program, provides that operational grants may be made to the coastal state on a matching basis for the purpose of implementing the program. S. 3293 (Mr. 1~ando1ph) Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to permit urban areas of more than 50,000 popula- tion to use highway funds in the operation of public transportation facilities. Provides that the Governor of any State may make such requests to the Secretary only on the recommendation of the mayor and city council and such recommenda- tion shall ~only be made after a public hearimg at which all of the economic, social and environ- * mental factors of the area have been fully con- sidered. PAGENO="0068" 64 LRS-5 Committee on Commerce S. 914 (Mr. Pell) S. 924 (Mr. Pell) S. 1071 (Mr. Kennedy et al.) a Encourages the preservation and development of a modern and efficient passenger rail transpor- tation service in the northeastern seaboard area by granting the consent and approval of Congress to the States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York to negotiate and enter into a compact to create their own Northeast Rail Authority, and by guaranteeing certain loans and other credit to such authority. Encourages the development and preservation of modern and efficient intercity passenger rail transportation service in the United States by granting the consent and approval of Congress to the States to negotiate and enter into com- pacts to create their own regional intercity rail passenger service authorities, and by guar- anteeiti~ certain loans and other credit to such authorities. Amends the Federal Power Act to further promote the reliability, abundance, economy and effi- ciency of bulk electric power supplies through regional and interregional coordination. Encour- ages the installation and use of improved extra- high-voltage facilities to preserve the environ- ment and conserve natural resources. Establishes the National Council on the Environment. 1916 (Mr. Magnuson) Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to study the most feasible and desirable means of estab- lishing certain portions of the tidelands, Outer Continental Shelf, seaward areas, and Great Lakes of the United States as marine sanctuaries. Amends the Federal Power Act to further promote the provision of reliable, abundant, and economical electric power supply by intergovernmental cooper- ation and strengthening existing mechanisms for coordination of electric utility systems. Encour- ages the installation and use of the products of advancing technology with due regard for the preservation and enhancement of the environment and conservation of scenic, historic, recreational and other natural resources. S. 1592 (Mr. Brooke et al.) S. PAGENO="0069" 65 LRS-6 S. 1925 (Mr. Magnuson Amends the Marine Resources and Engineering et al.) Development Act of 1966 to continue the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development. S. 2054 (Messrs. Tower Establishes the National Oceanographic Agency. and Eatfield) Related bill: S. 2204 S. 2393 (Mr. Muskie Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to et al.) study the most feasible and desirable means of protecting certain portions of the tidelands, Outer Continental Shelf, seward areas, Great Lakes of the United States, and the adjoining shorelines thereof as marine preserves. S. 2425 (Mr. Magnuson Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to et al.) provide for a long range program of comprehen- sive regional planning for, and coordination of, ~ transportation including therein the undertaking of research and development and the conducting of demonstrations. S. 2437 (Messers. Provides for the expansion and improvement of Magnuson and the Nation's airport and airway system. Cotton) S. 2651 (Mr. Randolph) Amends the Federal Airport Act to provide addi- tional federal assistance in connection with the construction, alteration or improvement of airports, airport terminals, and related facili- ties. S. 2713 (Mr. Randolph) Provides for the expansion and improvement of the Federal Airway system. S. 2802 (Mr. Magnuson Declares a national policy on coastal zone manage- et al.) nent and encourages State comprehensive planning for the development of the coastal zone. Autho- rizes the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development to make grants to duly established coastal authorities for the preparation of long-range master plans and guarantees certain loans and agreements for the purpose of land acqui- sition and restoration projects. PAGENO="0070" Declares that planning and development of the coastal zone should be carried out on the principle o~ multipurpose use and preservation of the natural environment. Authorizes the National Council o~ Marine Resources and Engineer- ing Development to make grants to coastal authori- ties for assistance in developing master coastal plans and for implementation of such plans. Pro- vides for the establishment of estuarine sanctu- aries. S. 3640 S. 1474 (Messrs. Sparkman and Muskie) (Mr. Proxmire et al.) Provideé for the development of a national urbani- zation policy to encourage and support more rational,orderly, efficient, and economic growth and development of our States, metropolitan areas, cities and towns with emphasis upon the develop- m~nt of new communities and upon inner city development . Establishes a Council on Urban GrO~th to develop a national urbanization policy. I~equires the submission to Congress and to the President of a biennial Report on Urban Growth. Creates a Community Development Corporation within the Department of Housing and Urban Development to promote and sponsor new community and more orderly urban development. Encourages State and regional planning for growth and stabilization. Amends the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 to provide Federal guarantees for fInancing the development of land for recreational uses in order to contribute to the orderly develop- ment of underdeveloped areas and regions of the United States. Provides for assistance to the States and their localities in utilizing land resources more effectively and in providing more housing to meet present and future needs. 66 S. 3460 LRS-7 (Mr. Tydings et al~ Committee on Banking and Currency S. 3025 (Mr. Javits et al.) PAGENO="0071" r S. 3228 (Mr. Muskie) S. J. Res. 60 (Mr. Mundt et al.) S. J. Res. 160 (Mr. Nelson et al.) 67 LRS-8 Committee on Government pperations Establishes a Commission~ on Population Growth and the American Future which has the responsi- bility, among other things, of determining the effects of population on natural resources and the environment. Promotes intergovernmental cooperation in the control of site selection and construction of bulk power facilities for environmental and coordination purposes Provides for balanced urban development and growth of the United States by providing greater coordination in the administration of Federal grants. Provides assistance to States and localities for developing compre- hensive coordination and planning agencies. Consolidates comprehems~ve planning requirements for grant programs and systematizes other plan- ning requirements. Establishes a Commission composed of twenty members to be appointed by the President to be known as the Commission on Balanced Economic Development. Directs the Commission to make a thorough study and analysis of current geographic trends, in the economic development of the Nation, the causative factors influencing the same, the implication thereof in terms of distribution of population, the effects of governmental actions in the shaping of such trends, and the factors, private and public, influencing the geographic location of industry and commerce as an aid in the formulation of policy -at all levels of govern- ment. Creates a Joint Congressional Committee to review and recommend changes in national priorities and resources allocations. S. 2701 (P.L. 91-213) (Messrs. Mundt and McClellan) S. 2752 (Mr. Muskie) PAGENO="0072" 68 HOUSE Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs li.R. 16670 (Mr. Morton) Amending the Water Resources Planning Act ~ ~ (79 Stat. 244) to include provision for a national land use policy by broadening the authority of the Water Resources Council and river basin conunissions and by providing finan- ~ cial assistance for statewide land use planning. H.R. 6656 (Mr. Eckhardt) Declaring a public interest in the open beaches of the Nation. Providing for the protection of Related bills: such interest, for the acquisition of easements H.R. 11016 pertaining to such seaward beaches and for the H.R. 15714 orderly management and control thereof. H.R. 15783 (Mr. McClure) Dedares it to be the policy of Congress that immediate action should be undertaken toward developing and implementing new programs to control and prevent the pollution and other destruction of our land, waters, atmosphere and scenic heritage. Directs the Public Land Law Review Commission to formulate legislative recommendations to protect the environment and to submit a report not later than December 31, 1974. H.R. 11650 (Mr. Wold Provides that in lieu of the disposal, under the et al.) Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, of surplus real property-and related Related bills: personal property that the Secretary of the H.R. 15916 Interior certifies is needed and suitable for H.R. 11788 and public park or recreation uses, such property others shall be transferred by the Administrator of General Services to the Secretary of the Interior, on request of the Secretary. H.R. 16593 (Mr. Foley) Amending the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. H.R. 10193 (Mr. Pollock) Settlement of land claims of Alaska Natives. Related bills: H.R. 13142 H.R. 14212 PAGENO="0073" I P.R. 3120 (Mr. Teague) Related bills: P.R. 7074 H.R. 9420 and others P.R. 14406 (Mr. Cohelan et al.) Related bill: H.R. 14533 H.R. 1337 (Mr. Reinecke) H.R. 11979 (Mr. Dingell) 69 I LRS-lO Teague) P.R. 14618 (Mr. Related bills: P.R. 14666 P.R. 14754 and others Directs the Secretary of the Interior to suspend further leasing under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act for the exploration or extraction of oil, gas, or any other mineral in the portion of the Outer Continental Shelf seaward of such State area, in accordance with the passage of any Cali- fornia law, which would prohibit the issuance of leases for mineral exploration. California Marine Sanctuary Act. Prohibits mineral exploration and development under the Outer Continenta]~ She]~f Lands Act within a buffer zone adjacent to the Santa Barbara oil sanctuary established by the State of California. P.R. 659 (Mr. Saylor) Provides for the cooperation between the Secretary of the Interior and the States with respect to the future regulation of surface mining operations.. Amends the Land and Water Con8ervation Fund Act of 1965 to provide that authority to enter into certain mineral leases with respect to the Outer Continental Shelf shall be suspended during any period when amounts in the land and water con- servation fund are impounded or otherwise withheld from expenditure. Provides for an announcement by the President setting forth various procedures, rules, and regulations which will assure that the Federal Government will not own, in the aggregate, more public domain and acquired land value than that owned by the United States on the effective date of this Act. Makes it the policy of Congress that land be acquired and disposed of in the same real estate taxing jurisdiction in order insure equitable treatment under this Act. to Provides for the compilation by the Secretary of the Interior of a national land and water inventory Directs the~ Secretary to c1ass~fy all lands and waters within each State according to (1) the presertt use being made of such lands and waters; and (2) the future use or alternative uses of such lands and waters which would best serve the PAGENO="0074" 70 LRS-1]. ~ needs of the Nation, particularly with respect ~ to the neea to conserve areas of great historic, . scientific, scenic, and recreational importance . and to preserve areas in the more densely popu- lation sections of the Nation from development. ~ Pro~rides for the publication ofthis inventory ~ . . thre~e years ~after enactment of this Act and for~its~revision every 2 years. Authorizes the Secretary to~ make direct grants to the States or political subdivisions for the acquisition ~ of interests in land if Ithe acquisition is for ~ purposeè which are consonant with the use speci- ~ ~ ~ fled in the inventory. H.R. 10787 (Messrs. Requires that any action by the Secretary of Baring and the Interior which classifies for disposition Burton) or retention more than 5000 acres of land shall ~ ~ ~ ~ be subject to approval by Congress. Coittee on Public Works H.R. 14845 (Mr. ~ Fallon ~ Establishes a national policy to encourage and et al.) assist the coastal States to exercise effectively . their responsibilities over the Nation's ~ estuarine and coastal zones through development and management programs to achieve effective use of the coastal zone through a balance between ~ development and protection of the natural environ- ment. H.R. 15025 (Mr. Farbsteiñ) Encourages the~formation of permanent regional water management asSOciaUons which are responsible Related bills: for the preparation and development of comprehensive H.R. 15044 pollution control plans for all or part of a river bathin or parts thereof that is consistent with or part of a comprehensive river basin water, and related land use plan for the area. H.R. 11314 (Mr~ Burton) Authorizes the Secretary of Commerce t~ enter into agreements with one or more States for the purpose `of carrying out pilot programs, relating to the control of outdoor advertising. H.R. 16599 (Mr. Ashley) To preserve, protect, develop, restore and make acceCs~Lble the lake `areas of the Nation by establishing a National Lakes Areas System and authorizing programs of lake and lake areas research. PAGENO="0075" H.R. 4018 (Mr. Fallon et al.) Related bills: LR. 7600 H.R. 7709 and others Provides for the renewal and extension of certain sections of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 and Title Vof the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended. H.R. 145 (Mr. Boland) Related bills: H.R. 727; H.L. 1151 H.R. 5824; H.R. 5955 and others H.R. .3848 (Mr. Wilson) Related bills: ILR. 4838 H.R. 11240 R.R. 13247 and others H.R. 5829 (Mr. Lennon) Related bills: H.R. 7895 H.R. 8794 H.R. 12549 (Mr. Dingell et a]..) (clean bill for H.R. 6750 and others) P.L. 9l~.l90 Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to study the most feasible and desirable means of estab- lishing certain portions of the tidelands, Outer Continental Shelf, seaward areas and Great Lakes of the United States as marine sanctuaries. Establishes the National Oceanographic Agency. Extends the life of the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development for a period ofl year.: Established as national policy that federal, state and lo~cal governments shall act to protect the. environment. !~irected agencies of the Federal Government to include ~environmental factors in decision-making. Directed that federal agencies itidlude in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major federal actions affecting the environment a statement on the environmental impact of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action. Directed all federal agencies to determine by July 1, 1971, whether their policies were in compliance with the purposes of the Act. Established in the Office of the President a three-member Council on Environmental Quality to assist the President in the preparation of an annual report on the environment, to review federal activities affecting natural resources and to conduct studies on the environment. The members would be subject to Senate confirmation. Authorized 71 LRS-l2 Connnittee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries PAGENO="0076" 72 H.R. 13247 (Mr. Related bills: H.R. 14089 H.R. 14418 and others H.R. 14730 (Messrs. Lennon and Mosher) Related bills: H.R. 14731 H.R. 15099 H.R. 16155 H.R. 14731 (Messrs. Lennon and Mosher Related bill: H.R. 16155 expenditures for the Council of up to $300,000 for fiscal year 1970 $700,000 for fiscal year 1971, and $1 million for each year thereafter. Directed that beginning July 1, 1970, the President submit an annual Environmental Quality Report to Congress, describing the state of the envirotiment, current and foreseeable trends in the management of the environment, and environ- mental programs of the Federal Government. Amends the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966 to establish a compre- hensive and long-range-ttational program of research, development, technical services exploration and and utilization with respect to our marine and atmospheric environment. Declares the polity of Congress to foster effective utilization of coastal and estuarine zones throuch assistance to coastal States in their management. Authorizes the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency to make grants to any coastal authority for the purpose of defraying the operating expenses of such authority. EstabUshes a national policy to encourage and assist the coastal Statts to exercise effectively their responsibilities over the coastal zone through development and implementation of con- prehensive management programs to achieve the best use of resources through a balance between multi- purpose development and preservation of the natural environment. Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make grants to any coastal States for the purpose of assisting in the development of a comprehensive management program. Provides for general studies and investigations of various coastal and estuary problems. Requiring the establishment of marine sanctuaries and prohibiting the deposit of harmful materials therein. LRS-13 Lennon) H.R. 16427 (Mr. Murphy) Related bills H.R. 16609 PAGENO="0077" 73 LRS-14 Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce H.R. 2506 (Mr. Saylor) Related bills: H.R. 15727 H.R. 15955 H. .1. Res. 49 (Mr. Related bill: H. Res. 163 H.R. 487 (Mr. Long) Related bill: H.R. 500 H.R. 488 (Mr. Long) Related bill: H.R. 501 Long) H. J. Res. 168 (Mr. Ruppe) Related bills: H. J. Res. 863 H.R. Res. 52 (Mr. Moss) Directs the Federal Power Commission to conduct a national study and prepare a comprehensive national siting plan of the optimt~m locations for large electric power generating facilities of all types to: (1) insure availability of an abundant, low cost, and reliable supply of electricity from such facilities, and (2) protect environmental assets of the country. Sets out additional related duties for the Fed- eral Power Commission to perform while carrying out the. above duties. Requires the Federal Power Commission to start the study within ninety days after enactment of this Act and to submit its national powerplant siting plan to Congress within two years after that date. Sets limita- tions on the Atomic Energy Commission's issuance of licenses for the utilization of nuclear energy for the production of electric power. Provides for a study of the impact of overhead electric transmission lines and towers upon scenic assets, zoning and community planning. Authorizes a program of research and development to encourage the use of underground transmission of electrical power and to undertake projects to evajuat~ and demonstrate the economical and technical feasibility of such transmission, Authorizes a program of research to determine the effect of overhead electric transmission lines upon the health and welfare of citizens, community planning and zoning, real estate values and ta~ revenues and the natural beauty of our country. Creates a Commission on Balanced Economic Development Provides for the preparation and submission to the Congress of a master ground transportation plan for the United States. PAGENO="0078" H.R. 13529 (Mr. Evans). Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to provide for a long-range program of comprehensive regional planning for, and coor4ination of, trans- portation, including thereiti the undertaking of research ~rtd dev&opment and the, conducting of `deinodstrations. Establishes major transportation regions within the United States. Amends the Federal Power Act to further promote the provision of reliable, abundant, and economical electric power supply by intergovernmental cooper- ation and strengthening existing mechanisms for coordination of electric utility systems. En- courages the installation and use of the products of advancing technology with due regard for the preservation and enhancement of the environment and conservation of scenic, historic, recreational and other resources. H.R. 12585 (Mr. MacDonald) Directs th~ Federal Power Commission to secure bulk power Supplies adequate to satisfy the mount- ing demands of the people of the United States, consistent with environmental projection. Estab- lishes an Advisory Panel on the Environment to assist the State commissions and regional councils in dealing with environmental matters. H.R. 7~)16 (Mr. Moss etal.) Related~bil1s: H.R. 7052 H.R. 7186 H.R. 9557 and others' }I.R. 1362 (Mr. Slack) Related bills: H.R. 3668; H.R. 4119 and others Amends the Federal Power Act to" further promote `the reliability, abundance, economy, and eff i- ciency of `bulk electric power supplies through tegional and interregional coordination. Encour- ages `the installation and use of improved extra- high-voltage facilities. Establishes the National Council on the Environment. Provides additional assistance in connection with the construction, alteration, o~ improvement of air carrier'and general purpose airports, airport terminals, and related facilities. H.R. 12374 (Mr. Staggers) Provides for the expansion and improvem~nt of' the Nation's airport and airway system. Related bills: H.R. 12824 I-hR. 12862 and others 74 LRS-l5 H.R. 9429 (Mr. Friedel) PAGENO="0079" 75 LRS-16 ~tt~eon~anki~&.n Currency LR. 7006 (Mr. Koch et al.) Provides for the `development of a national urban growth policy to entourage the support the rational, orderly effici~ent and economi~c growth and development of. our States, metropolitan areas, cities, counties and towns with emphasis upon the development of new ~omtnunities and upon inner city development. Authorizes Federal grants under the open space land program for the development and redevelop- ment of existing open space land and the acqui- sition of outdoor and indoor recreational build- ings, centers, facilities and equipment. Establishes an urban mass transportation trust fund. Related bills: H.R. 8915 H.R. 9661 and others Committee on Government Operations H.R. 15900 (Messrs. Wyatt and Foley) Related bill: H.R. 15954 P.L. 91-213 Creates a Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. Directs the Commission ` to conduct an inquiry into the following aspect of population growth in the United States: (1) the probable course of population growth, internal migration, and related demographic developments between now and the year 2000; (2) the resources in the public sector of the economy that will be required to deal with the anticipated growth in population; (3) the ways in which population growth may affect the'a~tivi- ties of Federal, State, and local government; (4) the impact of population growth on environ- mental pollution and on the depletion of natural resources; and (5) the various means appropriate to the ethnical values and principles of this society by which our Nation can achieve a popu- lation level properlysuited for its environ- mental, natural resources, and other needs. H.R. 16647 (Mr. Ashley) 3084 (Mr. }LR. Farbs tein) PAGENO="0080" LR. 13217 (Mrs. Dwyer and Mr. Fountain) H.R. 15870 (Mr. Related bill: H.R. 16109 Bennett) H. J. Res. 949 (Mr. Eckhardt et al.) Related resolution: H. J. 1~es. 950 Provides for balanced urban development and growth of the United States. Authorizes the Admthistrator of General Services in his discretion, to assign to the Secretary of the Interior for disposal, such surplus real prop- erty,. including buildings, fistures, and equip- ment situated thereon, as is recommended by the Secretary of the Interior as needed for use as a public park or recreation area. Connuittee on Rules Creates a Joint Congressional Committee to be known as the Joint Committee on National Priorities to be composed of 14 Members. Authorizes the Committee to suggest national objectives and national priorities and to recommend the allo- cation of resources disposed of by the Federal Government to such national priorities. Also to recommend courses of action, based on its findings and investigations, in the national interest to departments and agencies in the executive branch, to the States and political subdivisions thereof, and to regional agencies. I 76 LRS-17 PAGENO="0081" CflC#)C#)C/)~'~Ci) ~C~CflCflC,) O)C~)CflW ~ ~~=: g:~z~g~ 2~3 g3~ ~ ~ g ~ g _:3. ; ? CD PAGENO="0082" .8 Rill No. Introduced by - HOUSE Conifliittee On Agriculture and Forestry: ~ Fedtral land banks ~* 1483 Mr. lalmadge, et al. ~ ~ S. 2223 Mr. Humphrey~etaI. Rural development study S. Res. 76 ~ Committee o~ Commercé~ ~ ~ - ~ AirpOrt andairway deyeloRment ~ S. 1434~~ Mr. Cannon~ et al. - Electric poWer reliability . S. 294 Mr. Kennedy. NaticrnaItransportatioii.plann~ng s. 295 Mr. KenneØy, et al. Coastal land management S. 582 Mr. Hollin?s, et al. Tr~hsptntatiOn effect~on the countryside S. 728 Mr. Hartke, et al. National power gr)d..._ S. 2324 Mr. Metcalf, et al. Committee o~i Government dperations: National policy for rural development: S. 10 Mr~ McClellan; et al. Department of Community Development S. 1430 Mr. Percy, et al - Department of Natural Resources S. 1431 Do. - Committee 00 InterIor at~d Ibsular Affairs: - - Compile a riat~onal landuseinventory_ ~ HR. 659 Mr. Dingell. Saline Water l~OnVersiori Act : HR. 5334 Mr. Aspinall, et al. Do ~ l-l.R.9093 Mr.Johnson,etal. Land and water resources planning HR. 2173 Mr. Meeds. State land plarinihg~ HR. 2449 Mr. Aspinall. National land usepolicy HR. 4332 Mr. Aspinall (by reaue Do ~: H.R.4569 Mr. Kemp. Mined land restoration FIR. 4~56-7 Mr. Heckler. Do HR. 4707 Mr. Broomfield. Federal support of recreational planning HR. 4705 Do. Alaska land claims HR. 7039 Mr. Meeds. Public land policy HR. 7211 Mr. Aspinall, et at. Public Domain Lands Organic Act HR. 8504 Mr. Reid. - Do HR. 9911 Mr. Saylor. National resource land management HR. 10049 Mr. Kyl, et al. Committee on Public Works: ~ ~ - Public works and economic development HR. 9922 Mr. Blatnik~ et al. Do HR. 6588 Mr. Clausen. Mass transportation financing ~ HR. 55 Mr. Ryan. Transportation improvement in support of economic growth HR. 2366 ~ Mr. Pirnie. centers. - Appalachian regional development HR. 3280 Mr. Evins. Do H.R.4092 ~ Mr. Carter. Do HR. 4565 Mr. Kee. Protection costs of shoreline HR. 9658 Mr. Henderson, et al. National lakes preservationsystem HR. 7831 Mr. Ashley. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce: ~ Electric power reliability HR. 605 Mr. Bingham. Do HR. 1486 Mr. Patten. Do HR. 3838 Mr. Moss, et al. Powerplant siting HR. 1079 Mr. Reid. Do H.R.5277 Mr.Staggersetal. Transportation planning to reserve countryside - HR. 5899 Mr. Wolff. Electric power supply and environmental protection HR. 6970 Mr. Macdonald. Electricpowetcoordination H.R.6972 Do. National power grid HR. 9770 Mr~ Tiernan, et al. Committee on Government Operations: ~ - Department of Natural Resources Act HR. 653~~ Mr. Dingell. Conveyance of- certait. Federal lands to State and local HR. 6959 Mr. Holifield (by request). Government. -- r - . , - - H.R.6769 Mr. Ford. Department of Commujiity Development HR. 6962 ~ : Mr. Holifield. Rural development financing HR. 7993 Mr. Schwengel. Committee on Merchant MariCe and Fisheries: Coastal Land Management HR. 2492-3 Mr. Lennon. Do ~ ~: HR. 3615 Mr. Dingell, et al. Do H.R.9229 Mr. Lennon~etal. Committee on Banking attd Currency: - - National Development Act HR. 3550 Mr. Patman. Community development HR. 8853 Mr.Widn-áll; et al. Housing consolidation ~ - HR. -9331 Do. - Comprehensive planning and open space land-grants HR. 9332 ~ Do. - t_ ~ Hi. Res. 508 Mr. Ford. - Rural development financing H.R; 9630 Mr. Kyros. Housing and urban development - H.R: 9688 Mr. Patman, et al Committee on Agriculture: ~ - Rural development credit~ - -HR. 9650 Mr. Abourezk. -, Rural development - HR. 10867 -- Mr. Poage. Federal-Stale partnership for rural revitalization HR. 11678 Mr. Mizell.- PAGENO="0083" III. THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND LAND US~ POLICY: FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND FEDERAL ORGANIZATION AS THEY RELATE TO LAND' USE POLICY Twenty-three Federal departments and independent agen~ies have programs related to `and use `policy and planning. The accompanying table inclndes 112 Federal land-oriented programs, grouped according to function under two major headings-natural. resources and physi- cal development. These programs cover a wide variety of applications, including agriculture, regional development, transportation, wildlife preserves, recreation, housing and water control projects. Very often several departments and agencies will be active in the same area 9f concern. For example, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Envi- ronmental Protection Agency all sponsor programs for waste treat- ment and disposal. Water and water power projects are administered by the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, the Army Corps of Engineers of the Department of Defense, and several independent commissions. The table indicates these and other examples of the frag- mentation of similar efforts among various Federal agencies. The information in the table is derived from the Appendix to the 1973 Budget of the United States Government. Accordingly, the con- solidation of information on several related programs (as in the case of Appalachian regional development and the housing payments ac- tivities of H.T5.D.) and the reporting of information separately on certain programs, for example, the activities of the Federal Highway Administration, the Soil Conservation Service, and others, was based on the existing arrangement within the Budget Appendix. Iii an effort to confine the list of programs and `the fiscal totals to actual missiou-oriented activities and funds directly affecting land use, the solely administrative responsibilities and finances of some bureaus and agencies have not been included. The inclusion or exclusion of such information has depended in each case on the arrangement with- in the Budget Appendix.' The table identifies the agency which administers each program and gives the fiscal year 1971 actual total obligations and the fiscal years 1972 and 1973 estimated total obligations.Amounts are listed in thou- sands of dollars. The Appendix page number for each program is listed in the last column of the table for easy reference to the Budget Appendix. The second column of the table, entitled "Nature of Program", is intended to give a general idea of the scope of each program. The abbreviations used are: M-management, refers to programs of gen- `The Appendix sections on some bureaus and agencies have combined the information on administrative duties and expenses with information on program activities. Where Information on the administrative aspects of a bureau or agency is detailed separately, it has been excluded here. I (79) PAGENO="0084" I 80 cral maintenance~, operation, and protection of Federal property ; CP, comprehensive planning, is intended to denote a planning process which surveys all elements within a given geographical area, includ- ing natural resources, human resources and needs, environmental concerns, physical and economic development, etc.; FP, functional planning, refers to planning and research programs which include in their purview all elements within a broad functional area of concern; PP, project planning, refers to those programs which involve specific individually-funded projects with a planning process oriented only to preparation and implementation of the individual project. Fol]owing the table is a brief narrative discussion of the programs listed. An index arranged by agency appears immediately after the table. PAGENO="0085" .~ ~ .~ ~. b~ C~) 0) 0 U- E 0 I z 81 ~ - ~O co ~ r~. u~ ~ C~) 0 Lt) 0 0 ~ C~)C) W -0 ~ 00 ic~~ ~ ~ P~. M~ ~ ~ LC) CY) 000 ~ 0 ~. 0) N. - N. 0 0 0 0) CY) A. A. 0. ~ o. -0.A:0- ~ ~A. .0.0.2 i~io o. o.o.o U. U. U. 220. U- A-U- 2o.o. A. 0.0. A. A-U-A.U. A. 0~ A_A. = 00 LU ~ LU ~ = = 0 PAGENO="0086" d *a = a) C)) a) Ic'j C~ a) E 82 r-~ çø LC)©~~~ LOC)) ~)~OCQ~ ~ ~ ~ g2~~i&f g~ ~ LC)a)cf)a)OO~ ~CC) ))-~~ C))OQ a) ~~Ln~a)C)) N~ *)~C)J a) ~ ~ - a) a) -~ C)) CC) a) ~ ~ ~0) ~00 W 0) CC) A~0~ ~- ~-~-°-~- ~-~: ~ ~ L~. 0) =c-) LLJ~ .= - c~, ~ LU p.- ~ = <0 p.- z PAGENO="0087" 4L ~peratioñ and maintenance, . Bonneville Power Adminis- do M .~ ~tration. ~ ~ . 48; Construction of facilities, Southwestern Power Adminis~ Interior Department, Southwestern Power Administration__ PP tration. ~ 49. Operationand maintenance,Southwestern PowerAdminis- do M tration. ~ ~ ~ ~ 50.Water resources research Interior Department, Office of Water Resources Research FP 51. FederalPowerCommission FPC M 52. Delaware River Basin development, U.S. share ~ Delaware River Basin Commission. FP 53. Potomac River p~IIution control, U.S. share Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin FP 54. Susquetianna River Basin development, U.S. share Susquehanna River Basin Commission FP 55. Water resourceplanning WaterResources CounciL_, FP, PP & ~ci MINERALS ~ ~ ~ 56. Conservation and development of mineral resources Interior Department, Bureau of Mines FP 13. FISH AND WIL~L1FE 57. Management and investigations of fish and wildlife re- Interior Department, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and ~idIife_ M, FP source~ ` ` . 58. Construction of facilities necessary to conservation and do PP management of fish and wildlife. 59~ Migratoi~y bird conservation ~do ~ M, PP 60. Anadromous and Great Lake~fisheries conservation do PP ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ E. RECRATIOf( ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ 61. Planning and reeeerch and Federal coordination for outdoor Interior Department, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation FP recreafh~n. 62. Land and water conservation for recreation do FP, PP 63. Parks and recreation areas management and research--~_ Interior Department, National Park Service M, FP 64. Maintenance and rehabilitation of park roads, trails, and ~.,do M facilities. 65. Construction of park facilities do pp 66. Parkways, roads, and trails construction do PP 67. Preservation of historic properties do FP, PP 68. Recreational and fish and wildlife facilities Interior Department, Bureau of Reclamation M, PP 5,441 6,130 6,154 608 2;o46 2,004 922 609 15,600 17,343 17,765 610 13,225 14,258 14,257 612 19,820 21,583 22798 897 175 179 216 907 5 20 34. 907 75 150 908 5, 411 6; 143 6, 375 976 48, 298 48, 432 53, 351. 567 59,708 64~Th3 70,441 4613 9,153 6,961 15,434 14,591 14; 412 Z280 2,368 2,330 4,164 3;807 4,011 203,103 383,483 323,373 65,823 70,642 84,755 50, 547. 56,444 72,586 17,502 4.6,838 42,026 23, 165 23, 297 22, 000 6,625 8, 653 10, 000 1, 505 2, 030 959 575 576 577 578 558 559 581 582 583 584 586 590 PAGENO="0088" TABLE II B. PHYSICAL DEVE1.LIPM.ENT-Continued A. HOUSING 69. Rural housing for domestic farm labor ~USDA,Farmers Home Administration PP 70. Mutual and self-help housing do FP 71. Family housing, defense Defense Department PP 72. Interstate land sales full disclosure Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal M Housing Administration. 73. Nonprofit sponsor assistance do PP 74. Housing payments Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing PP Management. 75. Rehabilitation loan fund Department of Housing and Urban Development PP 76. Research and technology do FP Operation Breakthrough do FP B. URBAN DEVELOPMENT 77. Comprehensive planning grants Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmenL CP 7.8. New community assistance grants do pp 79. Model cities programs do CP, PP 80. Neighborhood facilities do PP 81. Open spaceland programs do PP 82. Urban renewal: Capital grants do FP, PP Loans and planning advances do FP, PP 83. National Capital Planning Commission National Capital Planning Commission CP C. RURAL DEVELOPMENT 84. Extension Service USDA pp 85. Economic Research Service do FP 86. Rural Development Service do FP 87. Public facility loans Department of Housing and Urban Development PP $737 $3,761 $5,463 169 1,721 2,450 3,729 170 668,235 802,417 958,829 326 700 500 487 2,770 6,340 8,690 487 ~ 8O8~176 1,310,400 1,882,000 510 50,872 51,485 51,700 524 43,441 50,784 62,900 531 26,715 16;284 4,500 531 45,794 66,389 100,000 514 357 12,143 10,000 516 520,625 620, 5~10 620,000 517 38,441 40,002 65,000 518 84,867 105,268 100,000 519 1,239,331 2,321,091 1,300,000 521 626,802 825,134 627,661 521 1,092 1,527 1,365 911 159,607 172,269 181,631 126 15,934 16,048 17,248 132 240 490 164 48,980 61,988 62,241 526 PAGENO="0089" D. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 88. Appalachian regional development Appalachian Regional Commission CP, PP 89. Economic development facilities Commerce Department, Economic Development Administra- PP tion. 90. Industrial development loans and guarantees do PP 91. Planning, technical assistance and research do FP 92. Regional development programs do CP, PP 93. Tennessee Valley Authority TVA CP, PP, M E. SANITATION 94. Waste disposal planning and development USDA, Farmers Home Administration FP, PP 95. Basic water and sewer facilities - Department of I-lousing and Urban Development PP 96. Construction grantafor municipal waste treatment works..... Environmental Protection Agency PP F. TRANSPORTATION 97. Transportation planning Department of Transportation FP 98. Transportation systems center d&. FP 99. Grants-in-aid for airports DOT, Federal Aviation Administration FP, PP 100. H ghway beautification do pp 101. Foresthighways do PP 102. Public lands highways do PP 103. Inter-American Highway, Alaska Assistance Program do PP Chamizat Memorial Highway. 104. Federal aid highways do PP 105. Right-of-way revolvingfund do PP 106. High-speed ground transportation research and develop- do FP ment. 107. Urban mass transportation fund DOT, Urban Mass Transportation Administration FP, PP 108. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, U.S. WMATA. pp contribution. G. OTHER 109. Alteration of bridges DOT, Coast Guard PP 110. Atomic Energy Commission plant and capital equipmenL_ AEC PP 111. Sites and expenses, public building projects General Services Administration PP 112. Construction of hospital and domiciliary facilities Veterans' Administration PP 262,888 374,211 300,C00 71 159,998 190,000 160, COO 231 49, 983 50, CCO 40, 000 232 2C,778 20,855 22,368 233 36,5C5 39,408 41,141 237 1,245,612 1,130,522 1,555,744 964 43,998 42, 000 42,000 169 119,660 241,211 235,000 520 1, 228, 364 2,080, 500 2,000, 000 780 15,250 32,859 49,000 681 24,098 34,257 50,618 685 305,713 295,000 295,000 710 11,910 38,033 61,300 713 30,933 22,878 22,040 717 12,936 10,000 12,000 718 4,620 3,577 359 719 ~ 4, 621, 365 4,997, 297 4,417, 000 720 50,000 - 50,000 50,000 723 24,113 25,540 60,862 731 334,077 606,175 1,000,000 735 180,028 188,011 174,321 909 8,750 13, 500 692 409,690 478,970 441,300 774 22, 704 28,750 34, 500 786 102,834 109,897 155,923 833 PAGENO="0090" 86 INDEX OF FEDERAL AGENCIES Agency and program by table number: Department oi~ Agriculture : 2-15, 28-30, 36-SO, 69-70, 84-86, 94 Department of Commerce : 89-92 Dej~artment of Defense : 31-35, 71 General Services Administration : 111 Department of Housing and Urban Development : 72-82, 87, 95 Department of the Interior : 16-23, 36, 56-68 Department of Justice : 24 Department of Transportation : 97-107, 109 Appalachian Regional Commission: 88 Atomic Energy Commission: 110 Council on Environmental Quality: 1 Delaware River Basin Commission: 52 Environmental Prolection Agency: 25, 96 Federal Power Commission: 51 F. D. Roosevelt Memorial Commission: 26 Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: 53 National Capital. Planning Commission: 83 National Parks Centennial Commission: 27 Susquehanna River Basin Commission: 54 Tennessee Valley Authority: 93 Veterans Administration: 112 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: 108 Water Resources Council: 55 NATURAL RESOURCES Natural resources program areas include land, water, hydro-power, minerals, fish and wildlife, and recreation. The Council on Environmental Qualit~j of the Executive Office of the President has responsibility for analyzing land and environmental conditions and trends, reviewing relevant Federal Government programs, recommending policies for environmental protection and improvement, and assisting in the preparation of the President's an- nual report to Congress (1). The Agricultural Research Service of the Department of Agricul- ture (U.S.D.A.) conducts research in the areas of soil and water con- servation, agricultural engineering, plant and animal disease, and other agricultural concerns (2) . U.S.D.A.'s Cooperative State Re- search Service provides grants to State agricultural experiment stations and forestry schools for research in agriculture, rural tom- munity life, and forestry (3) . The Agricultural Stabilizatio'n and Conservation Service of U.S.D.A. administers the commodity sup- port programs including management of Commodity Credit Cor- poration-owned commodities and sales and donations of commodities (4) . The Commodity (]redit Corporation of U.S.D.A. stabilizes and supports farm income and prices~ maintains supplies of farm corn- rnodities, and makes available materials and facilities necessary to the production and marketing. of agricultural commodities (5). The Farmers Home Administration of U.S.D.A. operates a pro- gram of direct loans to farmers arid ranchers unable to obtain credit elsewhere for real estate acquisition, farm and ranch improvement and operation, watershed development, flood prevention, and soil and water conservation (6). PAGENO="0091" 87 The Soil Co'rt~ervation Service of USDA administers several pro- grams relating to ~ the ~ use, protection, and development of land. Its general operations include research and technical assistance to farmers, ranchers and community groups in conservation and land use plan- fling, small watershed management control, and other areas (7) . The Great Plains Conservation Prograrn~ provides cost~sharing assistance and technical services to participating landowners and operators in the ~reat Plains area for the development and implementation of land conservation ph~~s (8) . Another Soil Conservation Servic~e program provides technical as well as financial assistance to individtmls, groups, and local government units in planning for the conservation and development of natural resources, including recreation facilities and income-producing enterprises where appropriate (9) . ~ Th~ Fore8t Service of the Department of Agriculture has general responsibility for the conservation and use of about 187 million acres of land in Nation~1 Forests and National Grasslands. Its program of forest protection and utilization provides for the management and pro- tection, including forest research and forest fire control, of the 154 forests and 19 designated grasslands (10) . Land acquisition toprotect watersheds and increase timber production and the construction of management and recreational facilities are conducted by another For- est Service program (11) . Still another program finances., the con- struction of rOads and trails in National Forests (12) . Privately owned lands within the National Forests are purchased by the Government when necessary to aid in the control of soil erosion and flood damage (13) . The Forest Service also supplies both technical and financial as- sistance to States for tree planting and reforestation work (14) . The Forest Service permanent appropriations include funds for building and maintaining forest roads and trails, disposing of brush and other debris, preventing forest fires, and restoring damaged forest lands (15). * ~ The Bureau of Land Management (B.L.M.) of the Department of the Interior i~ responsible. for the management of about 450 million acres of Federal public lands, including 278 million acres in Alaska, as well as the submerged lands of the Outer Continental Shelf. B.L.M.'s program of administration, management, and development of the public lands iliciudes resource conservation, wildlife manage- ment, soil and water conservation, firefighting, recreation planning, and other responsibilities (16) . B.L.M. also provides for the construc- tion and maintenance of buildings and other facilities on public lands (17) and for the construction of public land roads and trails (18). The Bureau also administers a program of range improvem~nts~ (19). The Bureau of Indian Affai't$ (B.I.A.) of the Department of the Interior has several programs for the protection and development of Indian lands. The programs promote economic advancement through development of forests and range lands, outdoor recreation, Indian arts and crafts, agriculture, soil and water conservation and mainte- riance of roads (20). Another B.I.A. program provides for the con~ struction of buildings, utilities, and. irrigation systems on Indian res- ervations (.21). In addition, 13.I.A. assists in the development of roads on Indian lands (22). PAGENO="0092" 88 The Interior Department's Geological Survey conducts research and investigations of water, laud, and mineral resources, does topographic surveying and mapping, and supervises the prospecting, development, and production of minerals and mineral fuels (23). The Land and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice is the agency which handles all legal matters relating to title, possession, and use of Federal lands and natural resources (24). The Environmental Protection Agency has responsibility for en- vironmental research, pollution monitoring and control, solid waste management, and noise abatement. It provides grants to State, region- al, and local agencies for planning and establishing environmental quality programs and for constructing appropriate facilities, and also supplies technical assistance for pollution control programs (25). Two commissions which will influence land use in particular areas are the From/din Delano Roo8evelt Memorial Commission and the Na- tional Parks Centennial Commàsion. The first is presently formu- lating plans for a memorial to the late President of the United States (26) . The second is preparing for a commemoration in 1972 of the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the worldwide national park movement (27). Water and water power programs are spread throughout many Fed- eral agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, and the Interior, and many independent commissions. U.S.D.A.'s Soil Con- servation Service conducts river basin surveys and investigations to provide necessary information for the development of coordinated water resource programs (28) . The Service also works with States and local agencies in planning works of improvement in small watersheds to reduce damage from flood-water and erosion (29) . Technical and financial assistance is provided for the installation of watershed works of improvement (30). The civil works program of the Corps of Engineer$ of the Depart- ment of Defense includes several activities related to the control, devel- opment, and beneficial u~e of water resources. River basin and flood control studies, coastal engineering research and beach erosion control studies are conducted under the Corps' program of general investiga- tions (31) . A construction program conducts design studies and in- cludes the building of locks, dams, and canals, and the improvement of channels and harbors (32) . The Corps operates and maintains many navigation, flood control, and power projects (33) . It also administers a program of flood emergency preparations, flood fighting, and rescue operations (34) . In addition, a special program of flood control for the Mississippi River and its tributaries is conducted by the Corps of Engineers (35) . The Departnwnt of the Interior'8 Bureau of Reclamation plans, constructs, and operates facilities to irrigate lands, furnish municipal, industrial, and other water supplies, and develop hydroelectric power and flood control in seventeen western States and Hawaii. The Bureau sponsors a program of loans and grants to non-Federal organizations for the construction and improvement of small irrigation oriented projects (36). Another Bureau program maintains an emergency fund which is used to assure continuous operation of irrigation and power systems in the event of droughts, canal bank failures, generator fail- PAGENO="0093" s9~ ures, damage to transn~ission lines, or other emergencies (37)'. The Bureau conducts general research and planning for potential reclama- tion projects including basin surveys,~ geothermal investigations, engi- neering methods research, and studies of effects on fish and wildlife (38) . Actual construction and rehabilitation of reclamation and irri- gation projects is also the responsibility of the Bureau (39) , as well as the operation and maintenance of completed projects (40). . The Colorado River Basin Project involves the planning, construc- tion, operation, and maintenance of the Central Arizona and Dixie irrigation projects (41) . The Tipper Colorado River Storage Project. now under construction, will provide irrigation service, a supplemental water supply, and hydroelectric power to large areas in the West The Alaska Power Administration (A.P.A.) conducts surveys and research to determine the most economical means of development and utilization of water resources to assure power supplies in Alaska (43) . A.P.A. also has responsibility for operating and maintaining two power projects, the Eklutna and Snettisham projects (44). The Bonneville Power Adm,ini~tration (B.P.A.) has responsibility for the transmission and marketing of electric power produced at 26 hydroelectric generating plants in the Pacific Northwest. B.P.A. con- structs transmission lines, substations, and related facilities (45) , and operates and maintains them (46) . The Southeaste~rt Power Adniin- istration markets power generated at 16 projects in a 10-State area of the Southeast (47) . The Southu'e$tern Power Administration con- structs transmission, substation, and switching facilities to transmit power generated at Corps of Engineers hydroelectric projects in the Southwest (48) . It also operates these facilities and markets the elec- tric power and energy (49). The Office of Water Resources Research within the Department of the Interior has responsibility for stimulating and sponsoring re- search, experiments, investigations, and the training of scientists in the fields of water and resources which affect water. It provides grants to all 50 States and Puerto Rico as well as matching grants to institutes for water resources research (50). The Federal Power Commi$8ion administers the Federal Power Act and Natural Gas Act. It has responsibility for the regulation of hydro- electric projects, electric power utilities, natural gas pipeline corn- panies, and natural gas producers. It also evaluates and encourages co- ordination among electric power systems and natural gas industry sys- tems (51). The Federal Government participates in several river-basin Corn- missions and contributes a portion of commission expenses. The Dela- ware River Basin Comir&ission was created by compact among the States of Delaware, New ~Jersey, New York, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the Federal Government to develop water and re- lated resources in the region drained by the Delaware River and its tributaries (52) . The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin was created in 1940 for the purpose of water pollution abate- ment and control (53). The Susquelianna River Basin Commission, which includes the States of Maryland and New York and the Com- monwealth of Pennsylvania, works to develop water and related re- sources in the Susquehanna River region (54). PAGENO="0094" 90 The Water Resources Council was established by the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965. The Council assesses national and regional water requirements, coordinates the planning activities and participation of Federal agencies in regional water development, en- courages the * establishment of River Basin Commissions, and makes grants to States for the development of water and related land re- sources plans (55) . * Th~ F~deral Government's basic program relating to minerals is ad- ministered by~the Department of the Interior Bureau of Mines. This program promotes the conservation, evaluation, and development of mineral resources. Research is conducted in the areas of coal, petro- leum, oil shale, metallurgy, mining, and explosives. Statistics on mm- eral production and consumption are recorded, and economic analyses and investigations are cax~ried out relating to bituminous coal anthracite, petroleum and other mineral resources ( 56). The Federal Government has several programs for the management of lands for fish and wildlife purposes. The major responsibility in this area rests with the Burean of Sport Fisheries and Wild'ife in the Department of the Interior. The Bureau conducts research, manages a number of facilities including fish hatcheries and wildlife refuges, and coordinates efforts to save endangered species (57) . The Bureau also constructs fish and wildlife facilities ( 58) , acts to protect migratory birds through the sale of migratory bird hunting stamps and the acqui- sition of bird refuges (59) , and makes grants to States to assist in the conservation and development of anadromous fishery resources (60). Several bureaus within the Department of the Interior administer programs for recreational activities. The Bureau of Outdoor Recrea- tion works to coordinate Federal, State, local, and private efforts, provides technical assistance, and conducts planning and research re- lating to outdoor recreation (61) . The Bureau's Land and Water Conservation pi~ogram provides matching grants to States to assist in the preparation of recreation plans, the acquisition of land and water areas, and the de~velopment of public outdoor recreation facilities (62). The Natio4'tai Park Serrioe (NPS) of the Department of the Inte- nor has primary responsibility for the conservation of the natural, historical, and recreational resources of the National Park System. N.P.S. cOnducts research related to the protection and use of parks and wildern~s areas and manages the 284 park areas comprising about 29.1 million acres which are included in the park system (63). The Park Service operates, maintains, and rehabilitates the parks' facilities, resources, roads, and trails (64) , as well as constructing new facilities and acquiring land and water rights where needed (65). N.P.S. also constructs parkways and trails, parking areas, overlooks, campground roads, and drainage structures (66) . In addition, N.P.S. provides for the preservation of historic properties by assisting the States to conduct statewide historic surveys the findings of which are incorporated in the National Register, and by making matching grants to the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the States for planning and for individual preservation projects (6'T). The Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior takes part in the Federal effort to provide recreational opportunities through its program of recreational fish and wildlife facilities. The Burean PAGENO="0095" has responsibility for planning, constructing, operating, and main- taining such facilities in connection with the development of the Colorado River storage project (68). PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT Physical development program areas include housing, urban de- velopment, rural development, regional economic development, sanita- tion, and transportation. Most Federal housing programs are administered by the Depart- ~ ment of Housing and Urban Deve?opment (HTJD) , but the Depart- mentof Agriculture (U.s.D.A.) through its Farmers Home Adm%nis- tZ'çttion also sponsors housing programs and the Department of Defense runs a housing program for military families. TJ.S.D.A. Farmers Home Administration concentrates on the devel- opment and improvement of rural housing. One program provides . grants to public or private nonprofit organizations for up to 90% of the cost of building or rehabilitating low-rent housing and related facilities for domestic farm labor (69) . Another program, aimed at encouraging families and groups of families to build their own homes by mutually exchanging labor, provides grants for planning assist- ance to nonprofit organizations which aid such mutual and self-help housing construction (70) . The family housing program of the Departm~ent of Defense pro- vid~s for construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, and maintenance, as well as leasing, of housing for Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Defense Agency families (71) The Department of Housing and tJrban Development's activities en- compass all aspects of housing, including siting, construction, renting, and research. The Interstate Land Sales. Full Disclosure Act requires that statements of record of subdivisions containing 50 or more lots must be filed with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development before sales programs may begin, to protect the individual who is seek- ing to purchase or lease a subdivision lot (72) . In another program H.U.D. facilitates the cQnstruction of low and moderate-income hous- ing by furnishing information and technical assistance as well as interest-free loans to cover 80% of pre-construction costs to nonprofit sponsors of federally-assisted housing for low and moderate-income persons (73) . HJLD.'s major housing efforts are concentrated in itS Housing Management office whiqh administers several programs in- cluding : 1. Rent Supplement, which pays to ~ certain landlords that. part of the full economic, rent which exceeds 25% of an eligible tenant's income ; 2. Homeownership Assistance, known as the "235" program, which makes periodic payments on behalf of lower income families purchasing their own homes thereby reducing their monthly costs ; 3. Rental Housing Assistance, known as the "236" program, which makes interest reduction payments on behalf of the landlord that are passed.. on in the form of decrea~d rent levels to lower income tenants ; 4.Low- rent Public Housing, which involves annualcontributions by the Fed- eral Government to LOcal Housing Authorities (L.H.A.) for the support of L.H.A.-owned poublic housing; 5.. College Housing, which provides for payment of debt service grants to colleges and eligible hospitals (74) H.U.D. also eneOnrages the rehabilitation of existing PAGENO="0096" 92 housing through Federal loans with annual interest rates of 3% or less to owners and tenants in urban renewal, neighborhood develop- ment, and code enforcement project areas and in certain other areas ( 75) . The most well-known aspect of IETJJ.D.'s research and technology program is Operation Breakthrough, in which large volume produc- tion of industrialized housing has been studied and encouraged (76). As with Federal housing programs, H.U.D. has the lion's share of programs for urban development. This includes the most comprehen- sive planning program presently sponsored by any Federal agency, the "701" program, through which grants are made to States, cities, counties, regional commissions, and Indian reservations to finance planning processes which take into account all factors invo]ved in full, balanced growth and development (77) . H.U.D.'s other urbun develop- ment programs are generally oriented to particular projects. The New Community assistance grants are made to supplement regu- lar Federal assistance for water, sewer, open space, transportation, and other development in new towns (78) . The Model Cities program provides funds for planning, community development, and the coordi- nation of other Federal projects within certain areas of selected cities and towns (79) . Through the neighborhood facilities program, grants are made to local agencies to finance the construction of neighborhood centers designed to provide a wider range of services and activities to low and moderate-income residents in the area (80) . To insure the pro- tection of lands having scenic, recreation, or historic value, and to pro- mote the development and preservation of park and recreation areas within the urban environment, H.TJ.D, makes grants to public agen- cies through its open space land programs (81) . The Urban Renewal program, which was originally established by legislation in 1949, pro- vides Federal assistance to local public agencies for rehabilitation and redevelopment of slum, blighted, an~l deteriorating areas (82). The official planning agency for the District of Columbia and for the Federal Government in the National Capitol area is the National Capitol Planning Commi88ion. It works to develop both long-range comprehensive plans and specific land use projects (83). Many of ELTJ.D.'s urban development grant programs are available to small towns as well as large cities, but the Dep'artment of Agricul- ture and H.U.D. also have programs oriented particularly to rural development. The Extension Service of U.S.D.A. provides activities and educational programs to rural residents in the areas of agricul- ture, home economics, community development, 4-Ti youth programs, and others (84) . The Economic Research Service of U.S.D.A. con- ducts research in farm and marketing economics as well as domestic and foreign economic analysis, including studies of rural development, rural life, ~ and rural governmental organization (85). The Rural Development Service is the bureau which coordinates all Department of Agriculture programs having to do with rural development (86) . H.U.D.'s public facility loans are available to corn- munities with populations under 50,000 but priority is given to com- munities of under 10,000 persons. The loans help finance the construc- tion of water, sewer, and gas distribution systems (87). Regional economic development programs affect many areas of the United States. The Appalachian Regional Development Commi88ion's PAGENO="0097" .93 program c&vers thirteen states . from Mississippi to New YOrk. It co~ ordinates various Federal and State efforts for comprehensive plan- ning to achieve full balanced growth in Appalachia as well as pro- motes specific development projects. It includes the Appalachian De- velopment Highway System, demonstration healthprojects, mine area restoration, vocational education facilities, supplements to Federal grants-in-aid, sewage treatment facilities, timber development, fish and wildlife conservation, and a research and local development dis- trict program which provides for comprehensive planning for eco- nomic growth, natural resources conservation, and improvement of the health and education of the people of Appalachia (88). The Economic Development Adn'i%nistration (E.D.A.) of the De- partment of Commerce has several programs to provide assistance particularly to economically distressed areas. The economic develop- ment facilities program finances the construction and improvement of sanitation, transportation, industrial, and skills development facilities t~ help promote private economic growth (89) . E.D.A.'s program of industrial development loans and guarantees provides financial assist- ance when it is otherwise unavailable and is the agency's most direct means of generating new employment opportunities (90) . E.D.A. also provides technical assistance and grants for planning and research for long-range economic development (91). There are five regional development programs administered through the Department of Commerce. Like the Appalachian regional develop- ment program, they encompass multi-state areas and seek to encourage comprehensive planning and coordination of Federal and State efforts within each area. The five regions are Coastal Plains, Four Corners, New England, O~ar/cs, and Upper Great Lakes (92). nih oldest regional development program is the Tewnessee Valley Authority, created in 1933 to spur development of a river basin area comprising parts of seven states. T.V.A. assists development of all re- sources in the area and includes programs for water use, flood control, power supply, recreation, wildlife, agriculture, forestry, minerals, ed- ucation, manpower training, environmental protection, and industrial development (93) Programs to assist the development of sanitation facilities are spon- sored by several Federal agencies. TJ.S.D.A.'s Farmers Home Admin- istration makes grants both for general planning and for actual proj- ect development of water and sewer systems in rural areas (94). H.U.D.'s water and sewer facilities program makes grants . to local public agencies for projects involving storage, treatment, and distribu- tion of water as well as collection and transmission of sewage (95). The Environmental Protection Agency makes grants to States to help finance the construction of municipal waste treatment facilities (96). Most Federal transportation programs are now administered through the Department of Transportation (D.O.T.) . The Depart- mont conducts a program of transportation research and planning which includes studies of national transportation requirements and new transportation systems technology (97). The Transportation Sys- tems. Center conducts specific research projects related to safety, pol- lution reduction, noise abatement, and other concerns (98). The Federal Aviation Administration of D.O.T. provides grants to public agencies for planning, developing, and improving public air- 75-793-72------7 PAGENO="0098" ports, inèluding puichase of land and construction of rithways and buildings (99). D.O.T.'s Federal Highway Administration sponsors several pro- grams of highway development. A highway beautification program provides funds to encourage the removal of non-conforming outdoor signs along major interstate roads (100) . Another program finances the construction and improvement of main highways within or adja- cent to national forests (101) . And another funds the construction and improvement of highways through public lands in those States which have large areas of pnblic lands (102). The Federal Highway Administration of D.O.T. assists several par- ticular highway development projects, including the Inter-American Highway, various Alaskan highways, and Chamizal Memorial High- way (103) . The major Federal Highway Administration program in- volves the Federal-aid highway system by which grants are made to States to cover 90% of the costs of completing the 42,500-mile system of interstate highways and to provide Federal matching funds for cer- tam other roads (104) . The right-of-way revolving fund provides in- terest-free loans for the advance acquisition of right-of-way by the States and payment of relocation expenses (105). The Federal Railroad Administration of D.O.T. conducts research and development related to high-speed ground transportation (106). The Urban Ma$s Transportation Fund of D.O.T. finances grants, con- tracts, and loans for research, development, demonstration, and man- agerial training related to urban mass transportation as well as mak- ing grants to State and local public agencies for actual construction of mass transportation facilities (107) . An independent agency, the ~ Wa~sh~ngton Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, is charged with planning, developing, and financing a rapid transit system in the Na- tional Capital area (108). Several other physical development programs which are not easily categorized include a Coast Guard program for the alteration or re- `moval of bridges which obstruct free navigation of the waters of the Ijnited States. (109) . The Atomic Energy Commission has a program of acquisition and construction of facilities for its research ai~id pro- duction activities (110). The General Services Adminstration finances site acquisition and planning and construction of building for Federal Government use (111). The Veterans Administration provides funds for the construction and alteration of hospitals and domiciliaries for ~ligib1e persons (112). 94 1 `I I PAGENO="0099" V. THE STATES AND LAND USE POLICY: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Truly significant developments have taken place with respect to State involvement in the field of land use controls over the past few years. Some of the principal State activities were summarized in three recent survey reports : (1) The State's Role in Land Resource Man- agement, a report prepared by Richard G. Rubino and William R. , Wagner for The Council of State Governments (1972) ; (2) The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control, prepared by Fred Bosselman and David Callies for The Council on Environmental Quality (1971); and (3) Managing the Environnwnt : Nine State8 Look for New An- swers, prepared by Elizabeth H. Haskell, et. al., for the Woodrow Wil- son International Center for scholars (1971). Highlights of these and other reports are given below. Rubino~Wagner Report: This survey, conducted in August 1971 to determine the extent of State interest in land management, concluded that "the States appear to be in the process of embarking on a move- n-tent toward assuming greater responsibility for land resource man- agement." On the basis of questionnaire-responses from thirty-eight States, the authors identified (in a supplement to the report) the following problem areas which were generating a need for an in- creased State role in land planning: (95) PAGENO="0100" Percent of States Expressing this Factor 96 TABLE III FACEORS GENERATING A NEED FOR STA~ET.N\TD RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACTION (by percent of States responding to factor) 1971 loo~ :1 2 3 4 5 6 A. Lack of adequate provision 1. agriculture, 2. forestry, 3. industry, 4. business, 5. residential communities, 6. recreation. for Idture land needs of; B. Inadequate protection of; 1. water supplies, 2. wildlife, 3. estuarine and marine fisheries 4. dispoilation caused by noon mining practices, 5. scenic areas 6. historical areas C. D. Rapid uncoordinated and piecemeal development. E. To provide for proper development of "new towns". `F. Lack of resources for adequate planning and zoning local level. G. Parochial planning and zoning practices at the local level. at the H. Lack of Unified criteria upon which to measure developments proposed for critical areas. Adverse development contiguous to key public impro v~ements and facilities. PAGENO="0101" 97 State and program description . COLORADO Reference Colorado Land Use Act. Provides temporary emer- Ch. 106-4, CR5. gency power overland development activities and 1963. authorizes model resolutions. Authorizes State to prepare subdivision regulations in counties where no regulations exist. DELAWARE Coastal Zone Act. State maiagement of shore zone industrial development. HAWAII Land use law. State management of land by broad categorical districts. MAINE 1971 Colorado Land Use Commission. Land Use Regulation Commission. Environmental Im- provement Commission. Environmental Im- provement Commission. Environmental Board. Department of Water Resources. The status of land use planning was summarized as follows: Seven of the thirty-eight respondents claims to have state- wide land use plans in existence. Hawaii, in 1961, was the first to complete a State land use plan, whereas the land use plans in the six other States and territories (Alabama, Delaware, New York, Rhode Island, Puerto Rico, and Guam) were completed in more recent years. Sixteen other respondents indicated that they were currently developing some kind of a State land use plan. Table 1 of the report presents several examples of recent innova~ tive State Legislation in the field of land use. TABLE IV.-EXAMPLES OF INNOVATIVE ACTION IN STATE LAND USE MANAGEMENT (1961-71) First enacted Administered by Category 1 Ch. 106-2, CR5. 1963. A 1971 Colorado Land Use Commission. Ch.70,T.7 D 1971 State Planning Office. Ch.205 C 1961 State Land Use Commission. Title 12, 5. 681-689_ A State management of all lands in unorganized or deorganized townships. Approval of large-site industrial or commercial de- Ch. 3, 5. 481-88 velopments, potential polluters, and residential sites over 20 acres. ` `Critical area" program to provide for management of all shoreland areas 250 feet from high water mark. MASSACHUSETTS "Critical area" ptogram for protection of coastal and inland wetlands. 1969 1970 Ch. 424, 5. 4811- 4814. C B 1971 Zoning Appeals Act. To insure dispersion of low- income housing. C Ch. 130,s. 27A, 105 and Ch. 131, 5. 40, 40A. Ch. 774,s. 1-2~..... MICHIGAN 1963 Department of Natural Resources. Shorelands Management and Protection Act ___ Act No. 245, Public Acts of 1970. C OREGON 1969 Department of Community Affairs. B 1970 Department of Natural Resources. C 1969 Governor shall prepare land use plans and enforce S. 10, 1969 zoning on all areas not subject to local regulation. VERMONT Approval of site davelopment in accordance with stateland use plan. Shoreline Zoning Act. Zoningto prohibital Iconstruc- finn within 500 feet of shoreline at all bodies of water larger than 20 acres. WISCONSIN Shoreline zoning law. "Critical area" program for Ch. 614-8588_______ management oflands around lakes and waterways. Governor ____-_-_-__ Ch. 151, ~ D Act 281 1970 1970 A C 1965 Department of Natural Resources. C 1 A-Management of genoral land uses within the State; B-Approval of land use development within the State in accordance with functional criteria (e.g., environmental, housing); C-Management of land uses within geographically specified critical areas(e.g. , wetlands, shorelines, scenic highways) ; D-~State enactment of zoning or subdivision authority in the absence of a local ordinance or regulation without reference to statewide plan or standards. Note: This chart presents examples of recent State action and does not pretend to be inclusive of all such action. PAGENO="0102" 98 Bos$elmqn-Callie8 Repo'rt: In contrast to the "movement" concept of the `Rubino-Wagner report, this study suggests that we are actually in the midst of a revolution in State land planning. It is a peaceful revolution, conducted entirely within the law, and its supporters include both conservatives and liber- als. It is a disorganized revolution, with no central cadre of leaders, but it is a revolution nonetheless. The ancien regime being overthrown is the feudal system under which the entire pattern of land development has been controlled by thousands of individual local governments, each seeking to maximize its tax base and minimize its social problems, and caring less what happens to all the others. The tools of the revolution are new laws taking a wide variety of forms but each sharing a common theme-the need to provide some degree of State or Regional participation in the major decisions that affect the use of our increasingly limited supply of land. The .bod~ of the report provides detailed descriptions of the experi- ence of recent land control legislation in Hawaii (Land Use Act of 1970) , Vermont (Environmental Control Law of 1970) , San Fran- cisco (San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commis-. siGn Act of 1965) , Twin Cities of Minnesota (Metropolitan Council Act of 1967) , Massachusetts (Zoning Appeals Law of 1971 ; Wet- lands Protection Program of 1963) , Maine (Site Location Law of 1970) , Wisconsin (Shoreline Protection Program established under the Water Resources Act of 1966) , and New England River Basins Commission (created under the authority of the federal Water Re- sources Planning Act of 1965). On the basis of their description of recent land use regulation, the authors isolate certain key issues involved in the regulatory and plan- ning processes. First, the authors conclude that there is a conceptual change under- way. Land is no longer viewed solely as a commodity. There is a draw- ing away from the nineteenth-century notion that the only function of land is to enable its owner to make money. A new trend is developing which views land as a resource which may serve a variety of purposes. This conceptual change coincides with an increasing awareness of the scarcity of land, an~ the realization that the land resource must be managed in an ecological framework of multiple needs. While existing systems of land use regulation still focus on the com- modity aspect of land, much recent state and local action in this area attempts to encourage a non-commodity orientation. The authors cite pTOViSiOflS for common open space and requirements that low-income housing be included in new housing developments as indicative of the changing attitude. The authors maintain that in the long-run, the appreciation of land as both a resource and a commodity will enhance land values more than would a system based primarily on the desire to increase im- mediate salability The role of the state in land use regulation is also viewed as a key issue. All of the states engaging in land planning have used some -method of concentrating their energies on a limited number of im- .~portant development decisions. The authors conclude that this is done so as to avoid diffusing the state regulatory policy too widely. The PAGENO="0103" 99 states of Vermont and Maine, for example, limit their land use~reguia- tion accoi'dmg to scale of development. Only developments of a cer- tarn size ~ need to be cleared by ,the state regulatory' agency; Twin Cities regulation, on the other hand, focuses on the type of develop- ment proposed: Major capital improvements, such as airports and sewers, are subject to regulation while other types of development are not. . It is clear the authors state, that the state's role in land-use regula- tion must itself be regulated in some way, since another key issue in- volves the role of local government in land planning efforts. Local regulation of land use exists primarily in urban areas. It is crucial that for these areas there is some coordination between state and local regulation systems. Otherwise there is unnecessary duplica- tion, delay, or contradiction in land use questions. Local systems of zoning and land regulation tend to encourage development, while much of the newly-enacted state legislation discourages it. Thus the authors discover continuing necessity to find a balanced approach which takes into consideration~both local needs and state goals. The balancing of conflicting or competing demands on land is itself a central issue. State and local governments must also deal with the Constitutional question of the inviolability of property. Excessive regulation may be challenged in the courts as being unconstitutional. According tç the authors comprehensive statewide land use plans ought, therefore, to be cognizant of the question of "taking". The States have not followed a uniform policy in selecting entities to administer land use regulation and planning. The authors discover three alternatives in the newly-enacted legislation. The task of devel~ oping and administering land use programs at the State level have been assigned to existing or newly formed line agencies, State commis- sions and State-created regional commissions. The authors conclude that it is still uncertain as to which alternative yields the most pro- ductive results in terms of a successful state land use program. Ha~keU report.-This survey deals primarily with organizational changes initiated by nine state governments, for the purpose of im- proving their environmental management capabilities. While the focus is on organizational and institutional design over the entire range of environmental problems, the report also covers some of the techniques used for various specific areas of environmental management, includ~ ing land management and regulation. The report finds that States perceive themselves as occupying a strategic level of government in environmental protection. They are closer to their land use problems than is the federal government, and so are able to structure their attack in a more precise manner. . Furthermore, the report finds that States have certain inherent and assigned powers which are vital legal tools with which to cope with de- structive uses of the environment. Among these is the police power which allows the state to restrict uses of privately owned land through such techniques as zoning (although this power has typica~ly been delegated to local governments). Some state officials were found to consider Federal environmental policies. based on nationwide - lems~ not to be tough enough to suit their own serious or problems. PAGENO="0104" 100 Vis-à-vis local government, many state governments contended that local government lacks legal authority and may have too narrow a geographical perspective to view laud use and environmental prob- lems. The state governments view themselves as being in a unique position to take advantage of "economies of scale" in land use regula- tion, unshared by local governments. The report finds that many of the new powers which states are be- ginning to assume in this area have been shifted entirely or in part from local governments. The usual strategy has been to first set tip a state-local partnership. For example, Vermont and Maine now share with local governments control of large land developments, and in Maryland a state-local partnership is established for waste treatment and disposal. ` A first tool used by some states to strengthen their land planning ef- fort is the generation of an adequate data base, and the development of analytical capabilities needed to make effective use of such data. Illi- nois and Minnesota, for example, are gathering and computerizing scattered data on land use in order, among other things, to facilitate eventual state land use planning efforts. Other specific tools being applied by the States to regulate or con- trol land problems include ( 1 ) Tax incentives to preserve open spaces. (2) State criteria which local zoning authorities must follow. ( 3) State controls over endangered areas or particular problem sources. ( 4) State controls over land above a minimum acreage. (5) Statewide land use planning and zoning. Reorganization itself was perceived as a strategy at the state level for creating a more effective land use policy. New York sought a stronger regulatory effort through the creation of a new, more visible, and politically powerful super-department. Consolidated environmen- tal departments have also been instituted in Illinois, Minnesota, Wash- ington, and Wisconsin. Examples of state governments with land-use management agen- cies include Vermont and Maine. The state of Maine has an Environ- mental Improvement Commission with new power to regulate land use on a state-wide basis. Both the Vermont and Maine systems are designed to control and mold the physical growth of the state. Vermont is also an example of the new interest in linking land use planning to a control system, through permits. In some states, the report finds, the focus is not so much on the land planning process, but on particular control techniques to immediately protect endan- gered resources, or control particularly difficult sources of problems. Miss Haskell recently summarized the land planning approaches in Vermont and Maine as follows: 1 The Vermont and Maine land use control systems are ex- amples of many states' increasing interest in land use plan- 1 "State Governments Tackle Pollution" Environmeatal Science and Technology, Novem~ ber 1971. PAGENO="0105" 101 fling and controls to prevent environmental damage. In 1970, both Vermont and Maine established state permit systems to control large commercial, industrial, and housing develop- ments. In Vermont, anyone, including a state agency, plan- ning a development over one acre or a subdivision of more than 10 units must first have a permit from the state. If there is a permanent local zoning, the state's permit is required for developments over 10 acres, giving the localities an incentive to adopt local controls. In Maine, the state controls all devel- opments over 20 acres or 60,000 ft2 of industrial floor space. The Vermont statute specifically requires the state to draft land use plans, based on economic, social, and, particularly, environmental values. The permits will implement these planned objectives. The Maine law has no such specific requirement for land use planning. Permits for land development in Maine must consider four statutory criteria : financial capacity of the de- veloper, traffic movement, effect on the natural environment, and soil co~1ditions. Vermont created a statewide Environmental Board that sets policy, is responsible for the land use plans, and has a quasijudicial review role over permits, and nine district com- missions which administer the permit system on a daily basis. The Vermont Board is exclusively a land use agency, and is 1 ocated in Vermont's superdepartrnent, the Agency of Envir- onmei~tal Conservation. Maine's institutional structure is not regionalized in this way. Its Environmental Improvement Commission formu- lates all policy, carries out the operational jobs of reviewing and issuing permits, and also administers air and water pol- lution laws. Other Studie$. In addition to the three above reports, both the Na- tional Commission on Urban Problems and the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Affairs have issued reports recommending that States assume land-use responsibilities by creating active State plan- ning and review agencies. A draft Model Land Development Code has been circlulated by the American Law Institute. Tentative Draft No. 3 ~ deals with : (i) State Land Development Regulation ; (ii) State Land Development Planning, and, (iii) Judicial Review. (See p. 30 of this Print for a summary of the provisions of the Tentative Draft No. 3.) A Task Force on Environmental Quality of the Urban Land Institute issued in 1971 a statement entitled "Environment and the Land Developer" which recommends that State Governments develop basic land use control standards and supervise their observance through local authorities. (The Appendix contains additional cita- tions to recent studies and reports). 1 American Law Institute, "Tentative Draft No. 3" (April 22, 1971) of "A Model Land Development Code" (Philadelphia, 4025 Chestnut Street). PAGENO="0106" PAGENO="0107" APPENDIX A RECENT WRITINGS ON LAND USE The following annotated listing of selected articles, legal writings and other materials, arranged under eight subject headings (land us~ policy, critical land use problems, implementation of land use controls, federal land control, urban growth, rural lands, public lands, concep- tual studies) and two functional groupings (legal commentary, bibli- ography of bibliographies), covering the period July 1969 through December 1971, was compiled through the use of the computor-stored data base of the Congressional Research Service LAND USE POLICY-GENERAL Barnes, Peter. Land reform-I : the great American land grab. New Republk~, V. 164, June 5, 1971 : 19-23. Takes a look at our landholding patterns, because land is still the cradle of great poverty and injustice. There is a growing recognition that many nagging social problems have their roots in the lack of access to produ~t1ve land ownership by groups who now make up much of the urban poor. First of a series. Blumenfeld, Yorick. Protection of the countryside. [Washington, Editorial Re- search Reports} 1971. 543-563 p. (Editorial research reports, 1971, v. 2, no. 3) Contents.-DisappearanCe of unspoiled landscape.-Land development of American continent.-British success in preserving countryside. Campbell, Louise, Urbanization, City, v. 3, Dec. 1969 : 12-20, 25-26. Can Hawaii, and its land-use law, survive the onslaught of progress? Clawson, Marion. Public acquisition of land is vital for orderly growth. Nation's cities, v. 7, Dec. 1969 : 29-30. Public acquisition, development, and disposal by sale or lease to private owners of land within metropolitan areas, particularly in suburban areas, is a prime field for cooperative intergovernmental action. Coke, ~fames G. Gargan, John J. Fragmentation in land-use planning and con- troL Washington, U.S. National Commission on Urban Problems, for sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1969. 91 p. The land-use report analyzes current land use controls and finds that `irag- mented land-use controls have contributed to unwholesome competition be- tween parts qf urban areas." The report also says that single-function Fed- eral and State programs also contribute to the "splintering" of urban communities and declares that "excesses of localism" can be brought under control with new governmental and fiscal arrangements supported by both State and Federal Governments. Curtis, Virginia, ed Land-use policies. [Chicago, American Society of Planning Officials, 1971) 74 p. Papers presented at the land-use policies short course held at the 1970 ASPO National Planning Conference. Edwards, Gordon. Land, people & policy. West Trenton, N.J., Chanc~ler-Davis Publishing [c1969J 159 p. This book proposed a practical and realistic method of using governmental powers of eminent domain, combined with private capital and managerial skills to help solve the urban crisis, conserve our shrinking resources and build a better urban America. Fellow Americans keep out! Forbes, v. 107, June 15, 1971: 22X24, 26, 29-30~ (103) PAGENO="0108" 104 Discusses the trend tOward environmental concern at the local and state level which is resulting in industry and land development being kept away either through direct banning or through restrictive legislation. Ga1~tntowicz, Richard E. Space preservation, taxes, planning . . . and talking: the crunch. American forests, v. 76, Oct. 1970 : 36-38, 75. Discusses the need for far-sighted open space planning and well organized preservation action programs. The Greening of public policy : planning the natural environment, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, v. 37, July 1971 : 209-286. This issue explores planning and public policy aspects of the newly minted national consensus on the natural environment. ~ . ~ Partial contents.-Interpretation insights into pollution, by R. L. Meier.- : *~ Ecology and planning, by S. 0. Holling and M. A. Goldberg.-Environmental . ~ quality as a policy and planning objective, `by M. M. Hufschmidt.-New di- ` rections in state environmental planning, by E. Haskell.-Three fronts of Federal environmental policy, by R. N. Andrews.-Planning literature and ` the environmental crisis : a coutent analysis, by T. D. Galloway and ` ` . ` IL 3'. Huelster. ilowells, David H. Land use function in water quality management. Water re- sources bulletin, v. 7, Feb.'19~'1 : 162-170. The dependency of water quality on land use points to the fallacy of at- tempting to provide for comprehensive water pollution control outside the context of comprehensive land-water resource planning and management. Irninel, Richard A. Ralph Nader's Shoddy Product. Wall Street Journal, Nov. 2, ` 1971 : 13. ` ` Power and Land in California, `a 1200 page "Nader Raiders" report, is . crjticized as biased, unoriginal, and often inaccurate. The study scrutinizes almost every aspect of California land use and ownership : the 2 million acre holdings of the Southern Pacific Railroad, the state's largest private land- owner ; big agriculture's use of irrigation, pesticides, and subsidies ; state regulatory boards and agencies ; open space control ; forestry regulations; tax and `assessment programs that encourage urban sprawl ; and state trans. . portation policy which is partial to freeway building. The report's strong points include instances of institutionalized conflicts of interest in state reg- ulatory bodies and a discussion of partially enforced or misused laws. Jackson, Donald. This land is our land. Life, v. 70, Jan. 8, 1971 : 32-43. `~We abuse the land," the great naturalist Aldo Leopold wrote in 1948, . "because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect. There is no other way for land to survive the impact of mechanized. man." The problem was serious then, when we had no overall land policy and few alarums. It is even more serious today, paradoxically, because we do have a policy. Its outlines were charted by the Public Land Law Review Commission in a report released six months ago. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Papers on national land use policy issues. Prepared for the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, by Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution [andj Boston University. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. `. 214p. . : At head of title : 92d Cong., 1st sess. Senate. . ` . Partial contents.-Guidelines for state involvement in the development of new communities in Massachusetts.-The crisis in shoreline recreation.- ~ Pricing policies for public recreation lands-Ecological problems of coastal . land use.-Powerplant siting In coastal areas. Miller, James Nathan. Bad scene at Mike Horse Mine. Reader's digest, v. 98, Feb. 1971: 75-79. In the mid-1960s, copper-mining Anaconda Company sent prospecting par- ties to the vicinity of an old abandoned shaft called the Mike Horse Mine . in Helena National Forest. What happened here between `the "developers" and the "environmentalists" is cited as an example of the need for the United States to establish a new set of priorities for the use of its land. Condensed from Empire [Denver Post] Jan. 10. 1971. National Research Council. Committee on Agricultural Land Use and Wildlife Resources. Land Use and Wildlife Resources. Washington, National Academy of Sciences, 1970, 262 p. PAGENO="0109" 105 An "assessment of the impact of current agricultural practices on wildlife resources," which focuses on two general objeetii~es : "to evaluate the inter- relations of agricultural land use and the protection and production of wild- life and other natural resources. To examine areas of apparent conflict be- tween the objectives of agriculture and wildlife management, with a view to what might be done through cooperative research, education, extension, and regulatory programs toward their resolution." Ripley, Anthony. Urban population pressures spur new land rush in the West. New York times, Jan. 25, 1971, p. 1, 16. Spengler, Joseph J. Population control : multidimensional task. Vanderbilt law review, v. 24, Apr. 1971 : 525-542. Of two potential population threats, too many people and too many people concentrated at points in space, the former is very likely to be resolved in the near future. The second problem, however, is being intensified. Even given full reliance upon incentives and disincentives incident upon mdi- viduals and firms, an optimum distribution cannot be achieved. Large-scale planning and collective intervention are required ... Ticer, Wilmer B. Legal methods of eliminating certain undesirable byproducts of the air transportation industry. Natural resources journal, v. 11, Jan. 1971: 177-194. . . . to describe and analyze certain public and private legal methods avail- able to those outside the industry who wish to rid society of these unwanted by-products. . . . it is suggested that at least air pollution, noise, and the burden placed on the use of land adjacent to airports be examined. The latter by-product include air traffic control and air-generated ground traffic. Werheim, John. Paradise lost? Ecologist, v. 1, Apr. 1971: 4-8. Hawaii is the epitome of the tourist paradise, with its promise of blue skies, white sand, splendid scenery and a warm welcome from the islanders. Now this promise has been broken by greed and stupidity, so that air and water are befouled, flora and fauna endangered if not destroyed, and the welcome soured by an alient ethos of puritanism plus profit. CRITICAL LAND USE PROBLEMS Airports Brennan, David. Jetport : stimulus for solving new problems in environmental control. University of Florida law review, v. 23, winter 1971 : 376-401. The jetport case is representative of a wide range of ecological problems; it involves questions of air and water pollution, protection of wildlife, and preservation of wilderness areas. . . . This note will trace the development and resolution of the jetport controversy and survey the present means to combat such problems, recommending improvements in existing procedure where appropriate. Gottlieb, Adrienne. Land use controls for airport planning. Urban lawyer, v. 3, spring 1971 : 266-276. McGrath, Dorn C., Jr. Multidisciplinary environmental analysis : Jamaica Bay and Kennedy Airport. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, y. ~ 37, July 1971 : 243-252. The new classes of environmental problems often call for innovative ap- proaches crossing disciplinary lines. Dorn McGrath describes the working of one such multidisciplinary team tackling a problem where competing demands on the environment from air transportation, housing, recreation, and natural open space all collide around the waters of Jamaica Bay. Roeseler, ~V. G. Airport development districts : the Kansas City experience. Urban lawyer, v. 3, spring 1971 : 254-262. . . . it is of utmost urgency that the Federal Government give serious consideration to substantial financial participation in advance acquisition of airport land and development easements. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. Environmental Planning Divi- sion. Airport environs : land use controls. [Washingtonj 1970. 35 p. (U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. Environmental planning paper) First in a series of Environmental Planning Papers, by Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. Winchester, James H. [Airport expansion] Christian Science monitor, Apr. 21, 1971, p. 10; Apr. 22, p. 16; Apr. 24, p. 14. Series of three articles on airport expansion, financing problems, and com- patible land use. PAGENO="0110" ~1O6 Power Plant $iting Clark, Timothy (B. Legislation on power plant siting seeks to speed resolution of environmental disputes. National journal, v. 3, Aug. 28, 1971. : 1785-1795. This is the first of two reports on proposed changes in Federal law to balance the need for bigger power facilities to meet the Nation's demand for electricity against a growing concern over the ~nvironn~ental impact of gen- erating and transmitting facijities. Heylin, Michael. Plant site selection proving difficult. Chemical & engineering news, v. 49, Aug. 16, 1971 : 44-48. * Formerly sites were selected on a dollars-and-cents basis, but no longer as attitudes, pollution control standards, and laws change." C&EN has analyzed the location of domestic capacity of 56 big-volume chemical items. Included are most of the big-dollar products turned out by the basic chemical industry. The comprehensive sample is made up of 26 organics, 19 inorganics, six man-made fibers, and five plastics resins. New York (City.) Environmental Protection Administration. Toward a rational power policy: reconciling needs for energy and environmental protection. [New York] 1971. 292 p. Highways Franklin, William D. The highway "interchange complex" and economic develop- ment. Traffic quarterly, v. 24, Jan. 1970 : 77-89. Investigation of the land uses involved in these land-value changes reveals that the amount of the value influence depends primarily on the type o~ land use of the property prior to highway construction, and the proximity of the property tp the highway interchange. Issacson, Larry, Peterson, Barry L. Park and recreational facilities ; their consideration as an environmental factor influencing the location and design of a highway. [Washington] U.S. Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environmental Administration, Environmental Development Division [for sale by the Supt. of Does., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971] 48 p. U.S. Bureau of Public Roads. Environmental Development Division. Highway joint development and multiple use. [Washington, For sale by the Supt. of Does., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1970] 126 p. Cover title. This report is the second in a series of status reports on joint develop- ment projects and updates the issue of September1968. 1~trip Mining Caudill, Harry M. Orphans of greed. Ecology today, v. 1, Mar. 1971 : 14-16. Strip mining-our unnoticed ecological disaster. Caudill, Harry M. Strip mining-coast to coast. Nation, v. 212, Apr. 19, 1971: ` 488-490. Franklin, Ben A. Coal rush is on as strip mining spreads into West. New York Times, Aug. 22, 1971, p. 1, 49. . . . portions of six Western states-Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming-face a topographic and environ- mental upheaval. It is being brought on by the nation's apparently. insatiable demand for energy, by the air pollution crisis in urban centers, by new technology in the conversion of coal to clean fuels, and by the economies of bulldozing rather than tunneling for coal that are available in the West. Peeling back the land for coal. Newsweek, v. 77, June 28, 1971 : 69-72. An account of the increasing use of strip mining for coal production and of the ecological havoc wrought by these operations. Brief mention of legislative attempts to stiffen rules for reclamation. Coastal Zone and Wetlands The battle for America's crowded coastlines. U.S. news & world report, v. 69, Aug. 10, 1970 : 44-47. l3urby, Raymond, III. The role of reservoir owner policies in guiding reservoir land development. Raleigh, Water Resources Research Institute, University of North Carolina, 1969, 56 1. (North Carolina. University. Water Resources 1te~earch Institute. Reportno. 29). A preliminary report of the multipurpose reservoirs and urban develop- ment project. PAGENO="0111" rch monograph of the )ose Reservi ect. - in ti midwest: an eco~omic anal- - stributed by the Johns Hop- ~ol1ution ~ U.S. ~eric Secre ary of the Int Law 89-758, the Clean vi bion Act Print. OfI~., 1970. 633 p. (91st Cong., ~ 1 sess. ~ A Seminar on proposed coastal zone managei ~ Calif., ?J Marine Advisory Extension Serviee, Sea Grant boldt State College [19711 87 1. Sorensen, Jens C. A framework for identi~cation & control of resource degrada~ tion & conflict in the multiple use of the coastal zone. Berkeley, College of En- , vironmental Design. University of California, 1971. 71 1. Includes a 11-page bibliography. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Quality Office. The economic and social importance of estuaries. [Washington, For sale by the Supt. of Does., U.S. Govt. Print. Off.] 1971. 1 v. (various pagings) . (U.S. Environmental Pro- tection Agency, Estuarine pollution study series, 2). As one of several concurrent efforts to assemble information for the De- partment of Interior's study of the United States Estuarine Zone, this re- port examines the literature and state of the art describing the economic and social importance of these estuaries. The main report is a summary of seven appendices analyzing the following social and economic activities : ( 1) recre- ation, (2) commercial fishing, (3) wildlife habitation, (4) extractive indus- tries, (~) waste assimilation, (6) land reclamation, and (7) transportation. Additional appendices were prepared on the Chesapeake Bay region, and an annotated bibliography of estuarine economics literature. Recrcatio~a1 Deve~op~entS Fialka, John. Merchandising the dream. Washington Star, Aug. 1, 1971, p. Al, A18 ; Aug. 2, p. Al, A4 ; Aug. 3, p. Al, A4 ; Aug. 4, p. A6. Series of four articles on the promotion and selling of recreation lands in the Washington area. Lebo, Hank. A day at the last private lake in California. ~ilear creek,, no. 6, Sept. 1~71 : 8-10. Describes the sales techniques in use in one privately owned rE Martin, Wendell H. Remote land : development or exploitationl ~ V. 30, Feb. 1971 : 3-10. A national phenomenon in recent years has been the development c ` tracts of remote land for recreational projects. Shah, Diane. Buy now ! Washingtonian, v. 6, July 1971 : 57-59, 69-73,' An investigation of the area's booming second-home comniux their high-pressure sales techniques, plus some down to earth ~ what to look for before you buy recreation land. ` Taylor, Ron. Subdividing the wilderness. Sierra Club bulletin, V. 56, Jan. 1971: 4-9. `Too many of the recreational subdividers c a paradox : they ~ convert open lands to a use that is r~ "~ ~ promotio. divisions that stand virtually empty, or Lake Tahoe into neon jungles, into resorts filli clubs, gas stations and hot dog stands. Case studies Bauer, Erwin A. Michigan's choice: oil or wilderness. Sports June 1971: 10, 12-14. ` The Pigeon Rhrer State Forest's wild elk will be 0: - that are lost to the oil well if drilling is allowed. A: game fish, sharp-tailed grouse and songbirds. ` Bronson, William. It's about too late for Tahoe. Audubon, v. 73, May 1971.: 46-80. 10C7 irces for ~e Natio: PAGENO="0112" 108 The national interest. in preserving the extraordinary natural beauty of Tahoe is immense, but its future is in the hands of men of little vision who dance to the pipe of corporate land developers, Nevada gamblers, and the Yahoo chambers of commerce of the cities and counties which control the Tahoe Basin. ~ Dayton, Stan. Profile of a hearing on mineral entry. Engineering and mining journal, v. 172, Oct. 1971 : 75-84. Reports on the hearings held by the Senate Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials and Fuels on Aug. 17 and 18 at Billings, Mont. The hearings dealt largely with the impact of exploration activities on Montana's Still- water complex located within the Custer and Gallatin National Forests. Farrell, William E. Adirondack State Park residents await development agency with mixed feelings. New York Times, Aug. 24, 1971, p. 39, 75. Pelter, Fraser D. Witness to outrage ; digging a ditch to disaster. Sports Afield, V. 165, May 1971 : 12, 16, 170, 172, 174. The Peripheral Canal will route water around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and deliver it to the northern end of the California Aqueduct. It is feared that the waterways of the Delta and ~ San Francisco Bay would be ruined for water-contact recreation such as swimming and water skiing and for sport fishing. By furnishing Southern California with more water the complex problems of that metropolitan area will be intensified with the opening of more land and the arrival of more people. Fischer, Virus. Storm signals over the Sawtooth. American forests, v. 77, Jan. 1971 : 32-35, 56-60. Discusses the battle over a national park vs. a national recreation area in the Sawtooth Mountains, spurred on by the announced discovery of a large molybdenum deposit near the base of Castle Peak in the White Cloud Mountains-the next range east of the Sawtooths. Galphin, Bruce. Conservationists battle industrialists in Hilton Head, S.C. Wash- ington Post, Dec. 15, 1969, p. AS. The lush seaside forests and golf courses in South Carolina's resort area are threatened by industrial promoters. Concerns plan of BASF, a subsidiary of the German firm BASF AG to build a chemical plant (3 miles from Hilton Head, South Carolina. LaFrenz, Robert L. Explosive excavation : current trends. Military engineer, v. 63, May-June 1971 : 176-178. Argues for the use and aceptance of high explosives for excavation, espe- cially nuclear explosives. McAuliffe, Robert D. Planning for an ecological industrial complex. Professional engineer, Jan. 1971 : 22-25. Describes an industrial complex being designed near Philadelphia by Landtech Corp., a consortium of planning and other organizations organized around the concept of a non-polluting, esthetically pleasing end product. Marx, Wesley. Island wilderness up for grabs. Audubon, v. 73, Nov. 1971 : 22-33. Of the eight Channel Islands, only Santa Barbara and Anacapa have Na- tional Park Service protection. Mitchell, John 0. The bitter struggle for a national park. American Heritage, v. 21, Apr. 1970 : 97-109. . . . Everglades National Park itself is being crushed in its 1.4-million-acre entirety and m~y soon be a terminal case. Sax, Joseph. A little sturm und drang at Hunting Creek. Esquire, v. 75, Feb. 1971: 118-120, 122-124. Reviews the events in the controversy over a landfill and housing develop- ment on submerged lands at the confluence of Hunting Creek and the Potomac River near Mount Vernon. Simon, Arthur. Battle of Beaufort. New Republic, May 23, 1970 : 11-15. Discusses the conflict between the anti-pollution and the anti-poverty forces over the building of a dyestufts plant and a styrene polymer (plastics) plant on the bluffs overlooking Port Royal Sound In Beaufort County. The Sprawl of the wild. Mosaic, v.2, winter 1971 : 2-13. Two research groups in California and Montana are searching for ways to promote harmony between man and nature. One group Is investigating environmental decision-making in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The other group is PAGENO="0113" 109 investigating the impact of a large recreational development on a semi- primitive envlronm~nt-refers to the Big Sky Recreational Development in Montana. / Vaughan, Roger. The tempting of a small town. Life, v. 71, July 30, 1971: 50-57. Describes the slow process by which Tiverton, RI., decided not to allow an oil refinery to be built in town. Ward, Fred. The imperiled Everglades. National Geographic, v. 141, Jan. 1972: 1-27. Florida's worst drought spawned some 500 fires that charred more than half a million acres. "Last year's devastation gave harsh warning that man's pell-mell development of south Florida threatens its ecological collapse, not only as habitat for its unique wildlife but also for human beings." IMPLEMENTATION OF LAND USE CoNTRoLs GeneraZ a~nd Case Studies Chang, Samuel B. K. Chun, Bina M. The land use law revisited : land uses other ~ urban.[Honolulu] Legislative Reference Bureau, University of Hawaii, Curry, David. Irvine ; the case for a new kind of planning. Cry California v. 6, winter 1970-71 : 18-39. This report reviews the land-use decision-making processes at Irvine and their relation to some broad environmental concerns ; analyzes the forces now at work at Irvine ; and suggests alternative courses of action for the future. Hamane, Charles K. Ground leases in Hawaii. Urban land, v. 30, Jan. 1971: 3-S. "To understand the popularity of Hawaii's ground leases, and to relate their appreciation to the rest of the U.S., a review of some background In- formation about the physical limitations, land use laws, and land ownership in the state of Hawaii is neccessary." Leopold, Luna B. Let's sing "Auld Lang Syne" for the Upper Brandywine. Nat- ural history, V. 79, June-July 1970 : 4-6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16-17. Article describes efforts of the author and others to offer people of the Brandywine Creek area a plan to preserve forever the natural qualities of their region from the inevitable urbanization. Plan would need to be based on law that protects water resources. Raney, Don. Mantolesky, Chet. The world : love it or leave it. Progressive archi- tecture, V. 51, June 1970 : 178-185. Cites the Brandywine Plan, as a project for demonstrating an approach to open space preservation through regulation.s and the purchase of ease- ment. Slavin, Richard H. Toward a state land-use policy ; harmonizing development and conservation. State government, v. 44, winter 1971 : 2-11. Author concludes that the state government should "develop urbanization policies and programs that take into account both people's and nature's needs for the purpose of minimizing the areas of conflict and discovering and enhancing the areas of harmony. Timmons, John F. Cormack, J. M. Managing natural resources through land tenure structures. Journal of soil and water conservation, v. 26, Jan.-~Feb. 1971 : 4-10. "As we face the challenge of reversing the trends toward land resource exploitation and pollution, we suggest serious consideration be given to basic changes in land tenure structures as foundations for future action. The proposed Resource Development and Environmental Control Districts would develop rules for using the specific land resource-soil, water, air, vegetation, wildlife, and minerals-within the districts." Wallace, David A. McDonnell, William C. Diary of a plan. Journal of the Amen- can Institute of Planners, v. 37, Jan. 1971: 11-25. Describes the trials of the private, non-profit landowner planning council attempting, in the Plan for the Valleys (a seventy-square mile sector of largely undeveloped countryside northwest of Baltimore, Md., prepared for the Green Spring and Worthington Valley Planning Council, md.), to rely on the power of a good idea. 75-793-72-8 PAGENO="0114" 110 Tacoatio~v Ashley, Thomas 3~. New communities and property taxation. Journal of soil and water conservation, v, 25, July-Aug. 1970 : 132-136. To encourage a new community builder to develop his property in ways compatible with highest and best use criteria, a new technique for rating the value of undeveloped land must be instituted, Present property tax approaches are ill-suited to helping better planned new communities mate- rialize. Hady, Thomas F. Differential assessment of farmland on the rural-urban fringe. American journal of agricultural, economics, v. 52, Feb. 1970 : 25-32. Land value taxation : pro and con. Tax policy, v. 37, Sept.-Dee., 1970 : whole issue. Contents.-Equity of heavier reliance on land taxation (location value) and less on improvements, by C. THarriss.-Arguments for changing ~ the real estate tax to a land value tax, by A. Becker.-Some uncertainties about the desirability of site value taxation, by A. Schaaf.-Differential taxation of urban site values-no. by M. Gottlieb.-Bibliography. Martin, Larry R. G. The examination of real property tax exemptions : an ex- ample of land use planning for fiscal gain. Monticello, Ill., 1971.34 1. (Council of Planning Librarians. Exchange bibliography 172) The Painful squeeze of property taxes. Savings & loan news, Oct. 1971 : 39-41, 43-46. Most local taxation systems . . . are poorly administered, regressive in nature and inequitably applied . . . High real estate taxes also have proved a serious deterrent to home sales, mortgage subsidy programs, and inner- city housing construction and rehabilitation. Schechter, Henry B. Gale, Terrie J. Property taxation : effects on land use and local government revenues ; a background study. Prepared by the Congressional Research Service for the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations of the COmmittee on Government Operations, United States Senate. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 65 p. At head of title : 92d Cong., 1st sess. Committee print. Walker, Mabel. Some observations on land value taxation. Tax policy, v. 38, floe. 6-7, June-July 1971 : whole issue. Author suggests four major considerations in evaluating the land value tax reform proposal : control of speculation ; recapture of socially created values; expediency and the "highest and best use" ; and equity, including the burden upon homeowners. Wolff, Carole E. Landis, Judson R. Dr. Irene Hickman and tax reform in Sacra- mento County, Calif. American journal of economics and sociology, v. 28, Oct. 1969 : 409-421. Zoning The Attack on snob zoning. Savings and loan news, V. 91, Nov. 1970 : 30-36. Government forces move against land use controls that shut out the less affluent, thwart builders already hard-pressed to meet housing demand. Kucera, Daniel J. Special use zoning for public utility company facilities : van- ance the spice of life. Illinois Bar journal, v. 59, Aug. 1971 : 986-992. In seeking zoning approval for installation of facilities, public utility corn- panies have received particular consideration as against various objections because of the unique public interest nature of their service. Maryland. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. Rural, agricultural and conservation zoning : an examination of the potential of rural area zoning for application in the bi-county region. [Silver Spring Md.] 1969. 46 p. Bibliography : p. 42-46. ~sTatoli, Salvatore J. Zoning and the development of urban land use patterns. Economic geography, v. 47, Apr. 1971 : 171-184. This study analyzes and assesses the effects of large area and spot re- zoning on the development and arrangement of desired urban land use pat- terns in Worcester, Massachusetts. Shipler, David K. The moral dilemma of zoning. Nation, v. 211, Aug. 3 1970: 80-83. The zoning issue has been called the new frontier of the civil rights move- ment. Most of the constitutional challenges now pending in the Federal PAGENO="0115" ill courts attn Amendrn&. . law . Planned Unit Developments .~ialka, John. Falkland : a proposed sttperdevelopment. Washington Star, Jan, 31, 1971, p. Al, A12 ; 13'eb. 1, p. Al, AlO ; Feb. 2, p. Al, A5. Series of three articles on a proposed superdevelopment in Silver Spring, Md. and its implications for the people and communities involved. Logical land use comes to the fore. Savings and loan news, v. 92, Sept. 1971: 50-55. "Housing's wonder child, the planned unit development, delivers benefits to lenders, tax collectors, conservationists and salesmen by paying attention to natural and man-made systems." Sussna, Stephen. Blending housing and open space ; the case for planned unit development. Current municipal problems, v. 13, Nov. 1971 : 203-210. 7loo~d Plain, Coa~sta1 Zone, and Parks Bangs, Herbert P., Jr. Mahier, Stuart. Users of local parks. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, v. 36, Sept. 1970 : 330-334. In 1963, BaltImore County, Maryland, passed a law requiring developers to set aside a portion of their subdivision for small local parks. Four years later, eighty-seven such parks were in various stages of acquisition and development. Fairchild, Warren D. Unwilling host to an unwanted guest. Water spectrum, V. 2, winter 1970 : 24-29. In the fall of 1967 the Nebraska Legislature forged into law a flood plain regulation program intended to supplement structural flood CQntrol methods, Moore, J. Jamison. Political pollution and coastal zone management. Undersea technology, v. 12, Aug. 1971 : 17-19. Discusses the progress of the State of California In developing it~ coastal, zone programs and the efforts of environmentalists to impose a commissiQu form of government to regulate and control coastal zone activity. Phippen, George R. A new course to Ararat. Water spectrum, v. 3, summer 1971: 8-15. The planning, implementation, and operation and maintenance of a pro- gram providing appropriate flood plain use combines management of both land and water into a single effort : flood plain management. :$tern, Nina. Regional parks. Sierra Club bulletin, v. 56, June j971 : 18-21. In the early thirties, citizens of Alameda County sought to acquire the land which is now Tilden Regional Park for public recreational use, and authorized the creation of the 1~ast Eay Regional Park District as the administering body in the fall of 1934. Rights of Way, Air Rights Barrett, Steve. Transmission ROW : multiple use pays dividends ! Electric light and power, Aug. 1971 : 59, 61-62. Suggests trails, parks etc. as possible uses of Right-of-Way(ROW) should create goodwill for the power company concerned. Cook, Tom Layden. The nature and use of airspace. Appraisal journal, v. July 1971: 346-361. Hanehett, Paul E. On the monopoly bias in airspace appraisal. appraisal journal, V. 39, July 1971 : 362-368. Papamarcos, John. Sharing rights-of-way. Power engineering, v. 74, Jur~e 1970: 26-33. Utility cooperation increases ; recreational use multiplies ; ~ increased attention; but sharing with highways remains a r controversy. Sackman, Julius L. Air rights-a developing prospect. Urban lawyer, v. 1971: 238-253. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the District of Columbia. bia Fr~eway Airspace Utilization Act; report to accompany - ton, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.] 1971. 6 p. (92d Cong., 1st sess. Senate. Report P2-511). PAGENO="0116" 112 FEDERAL ROLE IN LAND USE CONTROL Corrigan, Richard. Interior Department ftnesses HUD in scramble over land use program. National journal, v. 3, Mar. 20, 1971 : 597-607. The Nixon Administration has proposed two major bills relating to land use, in addition to the National Land Use Policy Act, as part of its 1971 environmental package. The' two bills-the Mined Area Protection Act and the Power Plant Siting Act-would give the Federal Government specific authority to~impose its own regulations in the absence of state action. The land policy bill (S.' 912, H.R. 4332) does not authorize Federal regulation. How shall we plan for our land? Current focus, Dec. 1971 : 1-16. This current focus will look at the national land-use legislation now before Congress and some of the issues that are emerging in the discussion of that proposed legislation. It will also describe a number of more specific land- use proposals, special cases which illustrate the need for a better formulated national land-use policy. Finally, it will report on the importance of our Federal lands, the Public Land Law Review Commission, and new legisla- tive proposals calling for a public land-use policy. Lear, John. Land : making room for tomorrow. Saturday review, v. 54, Mar. 6, 1971 : 45-48. Discusses President Nixon's proposals for a land use policy. Ridgeway, James. Para-real estate : the handing out of resources. Ramparts, v. 8, May 1970 : 2933. The Department of the Interior has two often conflicting tasks-to act as real estate agent for industrial interests, and to serve conservations by pro- tecting the environment. ` Seastone, Don. Implications of the regional dependency effect for Federal land use and program planning. Land economics, v. 47, May 1971 : 158-167. The purpose of this paper is to' analyze methods by which the Impact of the regional dependency effect of Federal land ownership on Federal-land- intensive regions can be systematically considered in land use and program planning. U.S. General Accounting Office. Controls needed over the leasing of land acquired under the open-space land program, Department of Housing and Urban Development ; report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States. [Washington] 1971. 21 p. B-168174, June 16, 1971. U.S. President, 1969- (Nixon). The President's 1971 environmental pro- gram : toward more rational use of the land. [Washington, For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971] 12 p. Reform/renewal for the 70's. Book two of a three-part series contains the legislative proposals on land use, including a National Land Use Policy, a greatly expanded "Parks to the People" program and new wilderness proposals, initiatives for power plant siting and mined area controls, and new approaches to encourage historical and architectural protection. URBAN GROWTH AND HOUSING PROBLEMS Bacon, Edmund N. Seven principles for an urban land policy. Urban land, v. 30, Apr. 1971 : 3-8. Author presents seven principles for efficient land use, sewage limitations, rebuilding the central city, etc. as an effective urban land policy necessary for the U.S. to fight against urban chaos. Belser, Karl. The making of suburban America. Cry California, v. 5, fall 1970: 1-19. A story about ". . . the flagrant ruination of the Santa Clara Valley, one of the most remarkably unique agricultural areas in the world, and the substitution of a completely irrelevant urban development of massive size and questionable quality that could have been placed almost anywhere else..." Berliner, Harold. Plaque on the land: a story of California's omnivorous promo- tional subdividers. CRY California, v. 5, summer 1970: 1-11. "Nevada County is but one of many California counties afflicted with gal- loping subdivision, but it's as good an example of the problems which ac~ company the overcommitment of land as `recreational' lots as any other county in the state." PAGENO="0117" 113 C~ntini, Edg~irdo. The American city-a forecast. Urban land, v~ 30, Oct. 1971: 3-12. Public ownership of land (with private leasing and improvement subject to comprehensive planning) ; regional governments instead of "home rule"; transportation systems p1~nned not to serve existing cities but to shape their rebuilding ; and urban renewal or "recycling" as a continuous process-are trends of the future, author predicts. Fisher, Martha. Cemeteries becoming critical factor in land-use planning as urban areas grow. Journal of housing, v. 27, Nov. 23, 1970 : 527-529. Author focuses on a graveyard in Pulaski, Tenn., as a factor of land-use planning in a demonstration project aimed at finding new open space uses for cemeteries. Gardner, Wayland D., ed. America's cities : five lectures on economic policy. Ann Arbor, Bureau of Business Research, Graduate School of Business Adminis- tration, University of Michigan [c1970] 56 p. (Michigan. University. Bureau of Business Research. Michigan business papers, no. 54 ) Contents.-The process of metropolitan development : American experi- ence, by W. Thompson. Industrial location and land use in metropolitan areas, by II. Nourse.-The economics of slum housing, by ` R. Muth.-Urban government finance and urban development, by D. Netzer.-The urban chal- lenge to governments, by W. Hirsch. Given at Western Michigan University under the sponsorship of the Dc- partment of Economics Winter Semester, 1969. Rousing innovations. Atlanta economic review, v. 20, Oct. 1970 : 14-32. Contents-Some technological solutions to housing ills, by J. 11am- maker.-Significant innovations in the design of housing sites, by C. Rob- bins.-Housing innovation-its labor, legal, and land use barriers, by P. Love-Housing crisis-innovations in finance, by 1. Waterfall. Klutznick, Philip M. Needed : a sensible and sane national urban growth policy. Mortgage banker, v. 31, Nov. 1970 : 58, 62, 64, 66, 68. Lawson, Simpson F., ed. Workshop on urban open space. Washington, U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development [1971] 47 p. Report of workshop discussions held in Washington, D.C.~ March 28-30, 1969 sponsored by American Society of Landscape Architects Foundation. Northam, Ray M. Vacant urban land in the American city. Land economics, v. 47, Nov. 1971 : 345-355. , The objectives of this paper are (1) to determine the approximate amount of vacant land in the American city and variations in the amount with city size and location, (2) to estimate the share of vacant urban land that might be considered "buildable," and (3) to estimate the monetary value of build- able vacant land. Revolution in surburbia ? Forbes, v. 105, Apr. 1, 1970 : 24-26, 31-32. Talk all you will about modular housing, there is no real solution to thi looming U.S. housing crisis without a new approach to land utilization. Rose~tha1, Jack, and others. Development of land in New York City's suburbs. New York Times, Aug. 16, 1971, p. 1, 35 ; Aug. 17, p. 1, 39 ; Aug. 18, p. 1, 47; Aug. 19, p. 1, 26. Series of four articles on the power and attitudes that affect control over the development of land in New York City's suburbs. Schneider, Kenneth R. The destruction of urban space. Traffic quarterly, v 24, Jan. 1970 : 50-76. When considering urban space, it is particularly the dynamic third dimeii- sion that is most critical to understand-not merely its use, but its use as a principle of organization. Shomon, Joseph J. More greenspace for urban America. Conservationist, v. 26, Dec-Jan. 1971 : 14-17. The biological and social sciences are discovering that a vital cQrrelation exists between adequate greenspace and the quality of life. The Urbanization game. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, v. 36, Jan. 1970: whole issue. This issue is about public policy and fringe area development. By looking at key aspects in the process of extending the urban edge, it tries to discover the extent to which suburban growth can be guided toward public objec- tives. PAGENO="0118" 114 U.S. Congress. House. Committee oil Banking and Currency. Subcommittee om Housing. Papers submitted to Subcommittee on Housing panels on housing pro- duction, housing demand, and developing a suitable living environment. Part 1. 92d Cong., 1st sess. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 412 p. At head of title: Committee print. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. Office of International Affairs~ Urban land policy; selected aspects of European experience. {Washington] For sale by the Supt. of Does., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1970. 219 p. Reprint of 1969 report. Surveys certain facets of European urban land policy. Bibliography: p. 214-219. RURAL LANDS ~ ~ Bracey, H. E. Conservation and rural development in Great Britain. Agricul- tural science review, v. 9, 2d quarter 1971 : 1-9. Explains what conservation means to Great Britain and something about the statutory aids to conservation. Frome, Michael. Threats to southern Appalachia. National parks & conservation magazine, v. 45, July 1971 : 6-9. Appalachia is in trouble. In places where forest cover should be carefully protected, the mountains are being exploited through construction of resortsr second-home subdivisions, condominiums, golf courses and chair lifts, projects that benefit only a few and shut off access to the many. Questions projects supported by the Forest Service, National Park Service, and the PVA. Harley, Ron. A valley weeps. Farm quarterly, v. 26, May-June 1971 : 10-13. Explains how unmanaged urbani~atlon has devoured the SaI~ta Clara Val- ley, one of Califarnia's most noted agricultural areas. The Land squeeze in California. Farm index, v. 9, Dec. 1970 : 4-6. Though a land shortage is not imminent, some of the bastions of Call- fornia's agriculture will have to make room for more people needing places to live and work. Lanier, Ray. A census of arable lands. Current history, v. 58, June 1970 : 337- 342. Evaluating the nation's arable lands, this specialist notes that "there ap- pears to be sufficient arable land in the United States to meet food and fiber requirements for the next 40 to 50 years." Prestbo, John A. Shrinking farmlands. Wall Street Journal, July 20, 1971, p. 1, 23. Nationally, about 1.5 million acres of farmland a year are being gobbled up by housing subdivisions, factories, highways and other forms of urban sprawl, the U.S. Department of Agriculture `estimates. A sizable chunk of the Nation's most fertile farmland lies directly In the path of expanding exurbia. About 20% of all U.S. farms are within what the Government co~i- siders urban areas. PunLIc LANDS Barnes, Peter. Water, water for the wealthy. New republic, v. 164, May 8, 1971: 9-10, 13. Describes the actions of large landowners in the Imperial Valley of Cali- fornia in avoiding the 160-acre limitations of the Reclamation Act. 4jaldwell, Lynton K. The ecosystem as a criterion for public land policy. Natural resqurces journal, v. 10, Apr. 1970 : 203-221. A public lands policy restricted to lands in governmental ownership has been politically expedient but ecologically unrealistic . . . A policy for the protection and ecologically intelligent management of ecosystems could, by the establishment of standards and guidelines, reduce the confusion, con- flict, and uncertainty that characterizes land use policy tl~roughout the United States. Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall. Federal public land laws and policies re- lating to use and occupancy. Volume IV: appendixes. Prepared for the Public Land Law Review Commission. [n.p., available from the National Technical Information Service] 1970. 1 v. (various pagings). "PB 195 660" PAGENO="0119" 115 ~ems. )ses in the environmental crusade. Field & Stream, develop a more coordinated system of planning the ~ L't S. x Interest and public lands. Current history, v. 59, July ~1 ) : 36-42, 52. The Great land : boom or doom. Time, v. 96, July 27, 1970 : 44-50. . . . Alaska is not so much the last frontier as the new frontier : the place to prove that Amerieans can live in harmony with the environment, not abuse it. Seastone, Don. Revenue sharing or payments in lieu of taxes on Federal lands? Land economics, v. 47, Nov. 19T1 : 873-381. Wagner, James R. Interior subcommittees move sloWly on legislation to reform public lands policy. Natioilal journal, v.3, Aug. 21, 1971: 1768-1178. The Public Land Law Review Commission's study has stimulate~l interest in the administraion of federally Owned lands. Changes in land laws could mean shifts in Federal policy in areas such as wilderness preservation and could profoundly affect many powerful economic interests, including miners, timber suppliers and oilmen. The administration has also proposed legislation that would affect use of privately owned lands. Furtherest along is the powOr facilities bill. Alaska A1asj~a ; special issue. National parks & conservation magazine, v. 44, Nov. 1970 2-34. Contents.-Oil, Alaska & the national interest.-Oil & the, Arctic tundra,. by J. Reed.-Alaska's economic resources & environmental quality, by G. Rogers.-Alaskan wilderness : going, going-gone? by C. Hunter.-Unsolved problems of Alaska's north slope, by R. Belous.-Map : Alaska, 1970.-The Alaskan dream, by D. Lambert.-Alaskan natives : time of crisis, by Jane Pender.-Wlldlife in Alaska.-NPCA at work. Barnes, Peter. Unfreezing Alaska : the potential for rational land use. New re~ public, v. 165, Sept. 11, 1971 : 15-71. Author notes that Alaska Is on the verge of economic take-off. Fears that, unless immediate steps are taken, it faces ill-advised giveaway of public lands to speculators and other special interests, with little regard for social or environmental consequences. Feels this has not yet happened because of objections to the Prudhoe Bay-Valdez pipeline and the land freeze. Laycock, George. Kiss the North Slope good-by? It's oil country now ! Audubon~ v. 72, Sept. 1970 : 58-75. Weeden, Robert B. Hauling and pulling in the Arctic. Living wilderness, v. 34,. summer 1970 : 8-16. TAPS wants to construct an oil pipeline haul road in Alaska. The Depart- ment of the Interior and conservationists say no. CO~TCEPTUAL STUDIES AND INFORMATION NEEDS Blase, Melvin G., Staub, William J. Real property taxes in the rural-urban fringe. Land economics, v. 47, May 1971 : 168-174. Using a growing fringe area of seven i as example, the authors present an "analysi~ urbanization affects that property tax in t ~nd changes ~ in benefits received relative to ~ _ Colwell, Robert N. Taking inventory of croplands and woodland v. 37, Apr. 1970: 42-47. Aerial and space photography can be useful in making inventory lana yield potential. Doxiadis, Constantinos A. Ekistics, the science of human settlements. v. 170, Oct. 23, 1970: 893-404. An exposition on ekistics written by the creator of this pla'nning system~ 9 near] ermin the a PAGENO="0120" 116 Goldberg, Michael. Intrametropolitan industrial location : plant size and the theory of production. Berkeley, Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, 1969. 242 p. (California. University. Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics. Technical report no. 2) Mathematical analysis. Goldberg, Michael A. Transportation, urban land values, and rents : a synthesis. Land economics, v. 46, May 1970 : 153-162. "The present study investigates the relationship between transporation, land values, rents and price elasticities of demand." Ingmire, Thomas J. Patri, Tito. An early warning system for regional planning. Journal `of the American Institute of Planners, v. 37, Nov. 1971 : 403-410. . Study of increased metropolitan growth pressure on the Santa Cruz Mountain range, a valuable and relatively undeveloped open sp~tce resource in the San Francisco Bay region, led to development of the Early Warning System, a model which can be used by planners for predicting future con- filets between land development and ecological processes. Kamm, Sylvan, `Curbing Inflation In residential land prices. Urban land, v. 30, Sept. 1971 : 3-16. Part I of this paper examines the question of the adequacy of the land supply in urban areas, the trends in land prices, and the major factors which appear to affect price levels. Part II examines a range of public policies wMch might affect land prices arid availability and suggests a series of ac- tions which might be undertaken by the Federal Government to deal with these. Kracht, Jams B. The application of models to the planning process with special emphasis on land use. Monticello, Ill., 1971. 18 1. (Council of Planning Librari- ans. Exchange bibliography 194) Lansing, John B. Marans, Robert W. Zehner, Robert B. Planned residential environments. Ann Arbor, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Re- search, University of Michigan, 1970. 269 p. A report prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Public Roads. Bibliography : p. 265-269. Mantell, Edmund H. Economic biases in urban transportation planning and im- plementation. Traffic quarterly, v. 25, Jan. 1971 : 117-130. Under-valuation of land and other costs and greater availability of Fed- eral funds for highways than for other forms of transportation are among the factors pointed out. Odum, Eugene P. Optimum population and environment : a Georgian microcosm. Current history, v. 58, June 1970 : 355-359, 365-366. The optimum population for a highly-developed, industrialized nation with a high per capita G.N.P. (gross national product) is very much lower than the population that can be supported at a subsistence level in an unde~teloped nation, because the per capita consumption of resources and the production of wastes are so much greater in the developed countries. Perspectives on urban spatial systems. Economic geography, v. 47, Jan. 1971: 1-90. Partial contents-Physical adjustment processes and land use succession: a conceptual review and central city example, by L. Bourne.-Equilibrium land values and population densities in an urban setting, by E. Casetti.-The spatial components of urban voting response surface's, by K. Cox.-Jnter- dependencies of commuting, migration, and job site relocation, by L. Yapa, M. Polese, and J. Wolpert. Rapkin, Chester. Economic patterns of urban land use. Appraisal journal, v. 38, Apr. 1970 : 227-239. Contents-Land use defined.-Phe role of urban planning. Stocker, Frederick D. Effects of taxation on urban land use. Appraisal journal, v. 39, Jan. 1971 : 57-69. Federal income tax has generally operated to stimulate construction and development, though not in direction of greatest need: the property tax, how- ever, `tends to discourage investment, especially in older urban areas. Stuart, Darwin G., Teska, Robert B. Who pays for what: a cost-revenue analysis of suburban lami use alternatives. Urban land, v. 30, Mar. 1971: 3-16. PAGENO="0121" 117 Using a Chicago suburb (Barrington, Ill.) as a real-life example, authors develop a basic framework for a cost-revenue analysis to determine the real costs of `suburban land use alternatives. ~ Vance, James E., Jr. Land assignment in the precapitalist, capitabst, and post- capitalist city. Economic geography, v. 47, Apr. 1971 : 101-120. "The purpose of this, essay has been to call to mind the role in the shaping of the physical build of cities played by land-assignment practices. In such a context it is necessary to conclude on the note that the traditional practices have everywhere been questioned and in some places abandoned, but as yet land assignment with the postcapitalist city operates in an unclear fashion." White, Gilbert F. Flood damage prevention policies. Natural resources forum, v. 1, no. 1, 1971 : 39-45. "This article begins with a description of the theoretical range of adjust- ments that can be made to floods, by changing them, by distributing the flood losses, or by arranging land use so as to change the losses ; and it discusses the major types of public policies intended to guide the adjustments, together with Some underlying assumptions in the formulation of policies by decision- makers." Yearwood, Richard M. Land subdivision and development : American attitudes on land subdivision and its controls. American journal of economics and sod- ology, v. 29, 1970 : 113-126. LEGAL COMMENTARY ON LAND PROBLEMS Anger, Glen A. "Rainbow City"-the need for Federal control In the sale Of un- developed land. Notre Dame lawyer, v. 46, summer 1971 : 733-759. Examines the problems that arise in the interstate sale of subdivided land, the inability of state laws combined with postal and Federal Trade Corn- mission acts to adequately remedy these problems, analogous securities prob- lems, and Federal proposals to eliminate the existing "loopholes." Reviews title XIII of the Interstate Land Sales Act (1908) to evaluate the protection provided for the investor. Bartke, Richard. Dredging, filling and flood plain regulation in Michigan. Wayne law review, v. 17, July-Aug. 1971 : 861-916. The encroachment of land upon water and water upon land has become a man-made phenomenon. Article reviews the state of the law dealing with dredging an4 filling on Michigan waters, and also discusses flood plain zoning. Bell, Christopher J. Controlling residential development on the urban fringe : St. Louis County, Missouri. Journal of urban law, v. 48, issue 2, 1971 : 409-447. St. Louis County is succeeding in "curbing the worst effects of urban sprawl" with the help of several relatively new planning and zoning tech- niques, especially the "non-urban holding zone" and the "planned environ- ment unit procedure." ~ Berger, Lawerence. A policy analysis of promises respecting the use of land. Minnesota law review, v. 55, Dec. 1970 : 167-234. This article will attempt to articulate in a new fashion the policies under- lying the problem of when the benefit and burden of covenants respecting use of land should run to remote parties. Coon, James A. Risse, Edward M. The structure of land use planning : a re- appraisal and a program. Syracuse law review, v. 21, winter 1969 : 375-389. Article is part one of "1969 survey of New York law." Feller, Michael H. Metropolitanization and land-use parochialism-toward a judicial attitude. Michigan law review, v. 69, Mar. 1971 : 055-708. Whether by design or default, the problem of land-use mediation in metro- politan areas will continue for some indefinite time to be a matter of judicial concern. There is good reason to argue that this is exactly as it should be . . courts can resolve cases while paying particular regard to metropolitan and regional, as well as local, conditions. Franklin, Herbert M. Federal power and subsidized housing. Urban lawyer, v. 3, winter 1971: 61-77. Author urges the necessity of everdisin to "passive" loan and f programs authorities, to provide ricome and standardization of L~ housing, creation of a new I~ ttOi - Lnstrumenta Lty to get c PAGENO="0122" 118 trol o~ urban land in advance of need, and creation of consolidated mortgage banking and community development agencies at state or metropo1ltax~ level and a Federally chartered corporation with powers o~ eminent 4omain are an~ong his suggestions. ~?reilich, Robert H. Bass, G. Allen. Exclusionary zoning : suggested litigation approaches. Urban lawyer, v. 3, sumn~ier 1971 : 344-874. The past trend has been to allow our fragmented megalopolises to degener- ate into suburban bastions resembling feudal principalities. Obviously, unless our maps are to be cbaracterized by rich and poor communitie~, unless we are to have ghettos bounded by corporate limits instead of neighborhood streets, some means must be quickly provided to mitigate exclusionary, prac- tices. Judicial resolution falls close to being simple tinkering. It can, how- ever, point out the inequities and lead to increased public awareness. Perhaps this will lead to bold solutions jn legislation. Fuller, James C., Jr. Coastal land use development : a proposal for cumulative area-wide zoning. North Carolina law review, v. 49, Aug. 1971 : 866-888. After reviewing other states' coastal zoning laws, proposes state super- ~ vision of coastal zoning in North Carolina. Heyman, Ira Michael. Twiss, Robert H. Environmental management of the pub- lie lands. Ecology law quarterly, v. 1, winter 1971 : 94-141. Discusses "possible reshaping of legal and administrative systems to con- aider the environmental implications of actions taken by land management agencies. By focusing on the Forest Service, and particularly its activity of timber harvesting, a methodology is proposed for dealing with the extraorcli- ary complexity of problems that must be faced in order to make environ- mentally sound planning and management decisions." Also appears in California law review, v. 58, Nov. 1970 : 1364-1411 Hunter, Jerald W. Preserving rural land resources : the California Westside. I~Jcology law quarterly, v. 1, spring 1971 : 330-373. This comment will focus upon state legislation, including subdivision acts, open space and easement legislation, and the Williamson Act, and upon the programs of local government, including planning, zoning, taxing, and struc- tural powers, which can be used as tools to shape land use decisions and patterns. institute on Law and Planning, 1st, University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham- paign, 1968. The private property and public-interest conflict ; proceedings. Urbana-Champaign, Bureau of Community Planning, College of Law Univer- sity of Illinois, 1968. 67 p. Partial contents-State land development legislation : problems and po- tentialities, by F. Bosselman.-Social determinants of the public interest, by J. Heikoff.-Planning and land use controls-an illegal relationship, by S. Plager.-Private property strikes back-increasing the area of compensa- tion through inverse condemnation, by C. Forrest, Jr. Kusler, Jon A. Artificial lakes and land subdivisions. Wisconsin law review, v. 1971, no. 2, 1971 : 369-448. This article treats selected legal aspects of regulatory and nonregulatory techniques to minimize short-and long-term lake eon~tructlon and land sub- division problems. It discusses existing and potential regulatory controls lii- eluding dam permits, subdivision regulations, shoreland zoning, and surface water zoning. Level, Edward E. Evaluation of special purpose properties in condemnation pro- ceedings. Urban lawyer, v. 3, summer 1971 : 428-439. Levi, Peter S. Model regulations for the control of land subdivision. Missouri law review, v. 36, winter 1971 : 1-76. McCloskey, Paul N., Jr Preservation of America's open spaces : proposal for a ~ational Land-Use Commission. Michigan law review, v. 68, May 1970 : 1167- 1174. ~ Outlines ". . . a proposal for the preservation of America's open space through a new national land-use policy." Article in a symposium on control of environmental hazards. MeEeon, Steve A. Public access to beaches Stanford law review, v. 22, Feb. 1970: 564-586. There are, however, two devices that can create public rights In beaches or uplands without the necessity of purchase or condemnation: subdivision control and creation of easethents founded on public use. These methods of acquisition are the subject of this Note. PAGENO="0123" 119 es and the increasing need for lOw and )fl and Lee law review, v. 28, fall 1971: c lai in aa law i The very nature of land management reveals the need for malia such as the State Board oi~ Land Commissioners, to act in a pacity. The responsible administration of state lands requires cle~ lines and comprehensive overviews, aimed at the long range ~, ~ ~. ~ machinery is needed to insure that our state lands will be managoct to assuL ~ maximum present and future productivity. Muckelston, Sandra. Strip-mining reclamation requirements in Montana-a en- tique. Montana law review, v. 32, winter 1971 : 65-79. In prelude to the following analysis of the basic provisions in some states, it should be noted that the legislation of Kentucky and West Virginia are generally concerned with basic reclamation while Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota appear to speak to rehabilitative programs. O'Flaherty, Michael A. This land is my land : the doctrine of implied dedication and its application to California beaches. Southern California law review, v. 44, summer 1971 : 1092-1134. In Gion v. City of Santa Cruz, Dietz v. King, the California Supreme Court held that the extended use by the public of private beaches and of the access routes to them created ati "implied dedication" of a permanent recreational easement. This article argues that the doctrine of implied dedication was ex- cessively evpanded, that private property rights were awarded to the public without the payment of compensation. An alternative solution is suggested. Olson, James M. The role of "fairness" in establishing a constitutional theory of taking. Urban lawyer, v. 3, summer 1971 : 440-465. Beitze, Arnold W., Jr. Old king coal and the merry rapists of Appalachia. Case Western Reserve law review, v. 22, June 1971 : 650-737. . . . presents an exhaustive survey of surface mining in Appalachia. After discussing the ecological and aesthetic devastation resulting from the several methods of surface mining, professor Reitze reviews the state and federal governments' ineffective attempts to control the problems ~ created by the surface-mining industry. The latter part of the article focuses on surface mining in Ohio, with an analysis of, and recommendations for, this state's response to the problem. Ross, John M. Land use control in metropolitan areas ; the failure of zotilng and a proposed alternative. Southern California law review, v. 45, winter 1972: 335-364. Schetroma, Russell. Eminent domain : just compensation when the condemnor enters before instituting proceedings. Dickinson law review, v. 75, winter 1971 : 303-324. Author examines the problem of compensating a landowner for property which has been invaded by a condemning authority before the institution of proceedings and suggests alternative approach and legislative propo$al. Snadon, Daryl N. Aesthetic regulatioti and the police power. Mi$sounl law review, v. 35, summer 1970 : 445-449. In most states, Including Missouri, all cities are vested thonity to enact and enforce zoning ordinances. However, t a municipality may regulate for aesthetic purposes is far from clear. is no doubt that the police power may be used to encourage the appropriate use of land within a community. Snitzer, Edward L. The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Ac- quisition Policies Act of 1970-a new era. Pennsylvania Bar Association quar- tenly, v. 43, Oct. 1971 : 114-120. ,. ~ ~ Suburban township zoning ordinance which does not provide for ~ as permissible residential use violates due process. Alabama law r'~ fall 1970 : 157-168. In appeal of Girsh, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled that i ing scheme that makes no provision for apartment t a per: ble residential use is arbitrary and unreasonable, and t~ tion of property without due process of law. Article urges s..~. ~..~ures PAGENO="0124" 120 to enact statewide zoning laws to protect the interests of existing developed- but-uncrowded townships. Sussna, Stephen. Abatement of non-conforming uses and structures. Connecticut Bar Journal, v. 44, Dec. 1970 : 589-598. ~ Points out that "even though the concept of nonconformance-use abate- ment has been petverted, the topic will become more important." Reviews briefly the problems and opportunities. Land-use and zoning : the State Island experience. Urban lawyer, v. 2, fall 1970 : 480-494. Sussna, Stephen. Kirchhoff, Jack. A neglected opportunity : the problem of pre- mature subdivisions. Urban lawyer, v. 3, winter 1971 : 126-134. Tate, Albert, Jr. Legal criteria of damages and benefits-the measurement of taking-caused damages to untaken property. Louisiana law review, v. 31, Apr. 1971 : 431-450. Thornton, Gregory Lee. The growing crisis in New York condemnation law : do- ficiencies of the present system and recent proposals for its modification and reform. Syracuse law review, v. 21, summer 1970 : 1193-1208. Udall, Morris K. Toward a national land use policy for urban America. Arizona law review, v. 12, winter 1970 ; 733-748. Land use policies now in effect are the product of 18th and 19th century America. The author suggests alternative policies more suited to the present day when urban sprawl threatens to destroy our remaining open spaces. VanAlstyne, Arvo Taking or damaging by police power : the search for inverse condemnation criteria. Southern California law review, v. 44, fall 1970 : 1-73. Identifies "the practical criteria and policy elements which characterize exercise of governmental regulatory power for which compensation for re- sulting economic losses is constitutionally required." Waite, G. Graham. Problems of national land use planning. Catholic University law review, v. 20, summer 1971 : 702-715. National land use planning will have the best chance of success if the validity of its detailed provisions is controlled by Federal rather than state law. Williams, Norman, Jr. The three systems of land use control (or, exclusionary zoning and revision of the enabling legislation. Rutgers law review, v. 25, fall 1970: 80-101. The three systems are identified as (1) zoning, (2) the local real property tax system, and (3) location of public facilities. Yiannopoulos, A. N. The public use of the banks of navigable rivers in Louisiana. Louisiana law review, v. 31, June 1971 : 563-585. . . . an analysis of the nature, scope, and extent of the public use of the banks of navigable rivers in Louisiana. Attention will be focused on the rights of individual members of the public, of the owners of the banks, and of the public authorities charged with the administration of the public use. BIBLIOGRAPHx OF BIBLIOGRAPHIES Connecticut. Office of State Planning. Selected regional, state, and Other govern- mental agency water resources planning documents for the Connecticut Water Resources Planning Project : bibliography. Hartford, 1970. 24 1. Ditton, Robert B. Water-based recreation : access, water quality, and incom- patible use considerations : an interdisciplinary bibliography. Monticello, Ill., 1971. 46 1. Lancaster, Joel R. Nicholls, Leland L. A selected bibliography of geographical references and related research in outdoor recreation and tourism : 1930-1971. Monticello, Ill., Council of Planning Librarians, 1971. 41 1. (Council of Plan- ning Librarians. Exchange bibliography 190) Leasher, Evelyn M. Miliward, Robert E. Cemetaries and urban land use : a pre- liminary bibliography. Monticello, Ill., 1971. 13 p. (Council of Planning Li- brarians. Exchange bibliography 248) Mason, Joseph Barry, A selected bibliography on interchange development and land use controls. Monticello, Ill., 1971. 12 1. (Council of Planning Librarians. Exchange bibliography 212) Meshenberg, Michael J. Environmental planning: a selected annotated bibli- ography. [Chicago, American Society of Planning Officials, c1970J 79 p. Partial contents.-Environmental planning: concepts and techniques.- Geology: minerals, mining, and land reclamation.-Water resources and PAGENO="0125" 121 watershed planning.-Air pollutiox~.-Landscape and urban design.-Popu- lation. This report originally appeared as ASPO Planning Advisory Service Report no. 264. Ray, William W. Urban studies in geography : a bibliography of dissertation and theses in geography, 1960-1970. Monticello, Ill., 1971. 60 1. (Council of Planning Librarians. Exchange bibliography 189) Schiffman, Irving. The politics of land-use planning and zoning: an annotated bibliography. Davis, Institute of Governmental Affairs, University of Cali- fornia, 1970. 62 p. (California. University, Davis. Institute of Governmental Affairs. Environmental quality series, no. 1) U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. Library. Environment and the community: an annotated bibliography. Washington, For sale by the Supt. of Does., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 66 p. Includes listings of selected films, suggested periodicals, concerned or- ganizations, and publishers' addresses. PAGENO="0126" PAGENO="0127" APPENDIX B / RECENT HEARINGS ON LEGISLATION AND ISSUES (92d Congress, 1st Session) Following is a selected listing of recent hearings on land-oriented issues, problems and proposed legislation organized under thirteen headings: (1) National Land Planning; (2) Housing and Urban Planning; (3) Coastal Zone; (4) Organization and Oversight; (5) Utilities; (6) Power Plant Siting, Industrial Location; (7) Parks, Recreation; (8) Transportation; (9) Public Lands; (10) Regional Planning; (11) Rural Development, Regional Development; (12) Water Pollution and Solid Waste Disposal; and (13) Public Works Projects. NATIONAL LAND PLANNING U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. National land use policy. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 632, S. 992. Part 1. May 18 and June 7, 1971, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 267 p. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on the Environment. National land use planning. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on H.R. 4332 and related bills [and] H.R. 2173 and related bills. Wash- ington, U.S. Govt. Print, Off., 1971. 359 p. Hearings held Sept. 13 . . . Nov. 9, 1971. "Serial No. 92-22." HoUsING AND URBAN PLANNING U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. Sub- committee on Housing and Urban Affairs. Land-use, planning, and management programs. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S.J. lIes. 52 and Title II of S. 1618. July 12, 13, and 14, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 235 p. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. Sub- Co Ofl I and Urban Affairs. 1971 housing and urban develop- t Sess. Part 1, Aug. 2 and 3, 1971. ~p. Print. ommittE ~. Com. and i H.R. L~, 1.0ff, 1 Sept. 9... COASTAL ZONE Committee on Comn erce. ti zone mans ~ement. ~ 5, 6 and 11, :1 492 p.] iittee on PAGENO="0128" 124 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcom- committee on Minerals, Materials, and Fuels. Marine sanctuaries in California. Hearings, 92d. Con., 1st sess., on S. 1446 [and] 5. 1452 .Nov. 1 and 4, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 163 p. ORGANIZATION AND OvERsIGHT U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Government Operations. Executive re- organization proposals. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 1430, S. 1431, 5. 1432 [and] S. 1433. Part 1. May 25, 26 and June 22, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 692 p. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations. Legislation and Military Operations Subcommittee. Reorganization of executive departments (part 1-overview) . Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on H.R. 6959, HR. 6960, 6961, and HR. 6962. Washington, U.S. Govt, Print. Off., 1971. 862 p, ~ Hearings held June 2 . . . July 27, 1971. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Interstate environment com- pact. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 907. Apr. 19 and 20, 1971. Washing- ton, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 144 p. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Public Works. Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution. Economic dislocation resulting from environmental controls. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess. May 17, 18, and June 28, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 331 p. "Serial no. 92-H19" U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. Sub- committee on Housing and Urban Affairs. Withholding of funds for housing and urban development programs, fiscal year 1971. Hearings~ 92d Cong., 1st sess. Mar. 3 and 4, 1971. Washington ,U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1971. 228 p. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Subcom- mittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation. Administration of the National Environmental Policy Act, part 1. Hearings, 91st Cong., 2d sess. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 1279 p. Hearings held Dec. 7-22, 1970. Serial No. 91-41. Contains "Draft environmental impact statement for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, Section 102(2)c. of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969," prepared by the Dept. of the Interior. U~S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Subcom- mittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation. Administration of the National Environmental Policy Act. Part 2. Appendixes to hearings, 91st Cong., 2d sess. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 822 p. Serial No. 91-41. Hearings held Dec. 7-22, 1970. A compilation of "102 statements"-the environmental impact documents required by section 102(2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. U.S. Congress. House. Commitee on Public Works. Subcommittee on Investiga- tions and Oversight. Red tape-inquiring into delays and excessive paperwork in administration of public works programs. Hearings 92d Cong., 1st sess. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 790 p. 92-15. Hearings held June 15-24, 1971. UTILITIES U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Subcommittee on Agricultural Credit and Rural Electrification. Financial needs of rural electric ~ cooperatives. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess. Oct. 26 and 27, 1971. Washington, ~ U.S. Govt. Print Off., 1972. 432 p~ U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce. Natural gas supply for Pacific Northwest. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 2404. Oct. 21 and 22, 1971. Part 2. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 1016 p. Serial no. 92-22 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcom- mittee on Communications and Power. Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act amend- PAGENO="0129" 125 ments. flearing, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on KR. 5065. Mar. 9, 1971. WashingtOn, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 62 p. Serial no. 92-1. POWERPLANT SITING, INDUSTEIAL LOCATION U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcom- mittee on Communications and Power. Powerplant siting and environmental protection. Parts 1-3. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on H.R. 5277, H.R. 6970, H.R. 6971, H.R. 6972, H.R. 3838, H.R. 7045, Hit. 1079, and HR. 1486. Washing- ton, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 3 v. Hearings held May4-27, 1971. Serial nos. 92-31-33. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. National fuels and energy policy. Hearing, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. Res. 45. Feb. 25, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 129 p. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Problems of electrical power production in the Southwest. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 4 v. Hearings held in Las Vegas, Nev., May 25, 1971 ; Salt Lake City, May 26; Durango, Cob., May 27 ; Page, Ariz., May 28. U.S. Congress. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Subcommittee on Legislation. AEC licensing procedure and related legislation. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess. Part 1. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 478 p. Hearings held June 22-July 14, 1971. U.S. Congress. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Subcommittee on Legislation. AEC licensing procedure and related legislation. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess. Part 2. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 479-1146 p. U.S. Congress. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Subcommittee on Legislation. AEC licensing procedure and related legislation. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess. Part 3. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 1147-1634 p. U.S. Congress. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Subcommittee on Legislation. AEC licensing procedure and related legislation. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess. Part 4. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 1635-2090 p. PARKS, RECREATION U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation. Hells Canyon-Snake National River. Hearings, 92d Cong., lstsess., on S. 717 and S. 448. Sept. 16, 17 and 30, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971 490 p. The bill, S. 717, would establish a Hells Canyon-Snake National River corn- prising approximately 125 miles of the Snake River in Oregon and Idaho, 40 miles of the Grande Ronde River in Oregon, 100 miles of the Salmon River in Idaho, and 714,000 acres in private ownership, are located in three major national forests-the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest In Oregon, the Nez Perce and Payette National Forests in Idaho. U.S. Congress, House. Committee on Interior and Insular Aff~lr~, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation. Sawtooth National Recreation Area. Hear- ings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on H.R. 6957. June 7 and 8, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 246 p. Serial no. 92-13. U.S. Congress, House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation. Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area. Hearing, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 1977. Sept. 14, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 72 p. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation. Missouri Breaks Scenic Recreation River. Hearing, 92 Cong., 1st sess., on S. 1405. Aug. 16, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 123 p. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials, and Fuels. Three Sisters Wilderness, Oregon. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 1784. Sept. 13 and 14, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 95 p. 75-793 O-72-----9 PAGENO="0130" ~ 126 TI. S. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation. Lincoln Home National Historic Site. Hear ings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on H.R. 3117 and related bills. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 117 p. Hearings held in Washington, D.C.-Apr. 5, 1971 ; Springfield, 111.-June 11, 1~71. ~ Serial no. ~2-4. U.S. Cóñgress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation. Canyonlands, Glen Canyon, Capitol Reef, and Arches National Park. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st se~s., on S. 26, 5. 27, 5. 29 [and] S. 30. June 3, 19~1. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print Off., 1971. 84 p. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation. Buffalo National River, Arkansas. Hearing, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 7. Apr. 22, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt.' Print. Off., 1971. 50 p. ` U.S. Congress. Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee o~l Parks and Recreation. Snowmobiles and other off-road vehicThs. Hearing, 92d Cong., 1st sess., May 21, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1071 109 p. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation. Utah National Park proposals. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on HR. 9053. June 14 and' 15, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 111 p. "Serial no. 92-14" U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations. Conservation and ` Natural Resources Subcommittee. Public access to reservoirs to meet growing ` recreation demands. Hearing, 92d Cong., 1st sess., June 15, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 192 p. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation. Gateway National Recreation Area. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 1193 and S. `1852. May 12 and 17, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 203 p. ~ TRANSPORTATION U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Public Works. `Appalachian airports. Hear- ing, 92d Cong., 1st sess. Mar. 2, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 45p. The development of regional airports for the purpose of improving trans- port~tion and passehger safety. Serial no. 92-H6. ` U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Appropriations. Civil supersonic aircraft development (SST) for fiscal year 1971. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess. Wash- ington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 557 p. ` U.S. Congress. ` House. Committee on Appropriations. Subcommitte& on Dept. of Transportation and Related Agencies. Civil supersonic aircraft develoØment (SST). Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess. `Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 709 p. ` ` ~ ` U.S. Congress. Senate, Committee on Commerce. Subcommittee on Surface Trans- portation. Administration's request for additional funding for Amtrak. ~Hear- ing, 92d Cong., 1st sess. Oct. 26, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 864 p. Serial no. 92-29 ` U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Public Works. Subcommittee on Public Buildings and `Grounds. Heliport for the District of Columbia. Hearing, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on Hil. 9723. Sept. 23, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971.7lp. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcom- mittee on Transportation and Aeronautics. High-speed ground transportation extension-1971. Hearing, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on H.R.' 8107, H.R. 8302, and S. 979. Oct. 13, 1971. WashIngton, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 30 p. Serial no. 92-39. `U.S. Congress. `Senate. Committee on Commerce. Subcommittee on Surface Trans- portation. Amend the Department of Transportation Act. Hearing, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 728. May 3, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 22 p. Serial no. 92-21 PAGENO="0131" 127 U.S. Congress. senate, Committee on Commerce. Subcommittee on Aviation. Air- port and A4rway Development and Revenue Acts amendments of 1971. Hear- ings, 92d Cong., 1st sess~, on S. 1437. June 22 and 23, 1971. WashIngton, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 66 p. Serial no 92-19. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcom- mittee on Transportation and Aeronautics. Airport and airway trust fund. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on H.R. 7072 (and identical bills) . June 8 and 9, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971 115 p. Serial no. 92-35. ~ Bills to amend the Airport and Airway Development and Revenue Acts of 1970 to further clarify the intent of congress as to priorities for airway modernization and airport development, and for other purposes. PUBLIC LANDs * U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Public Lands. "Clear-cutting" practices on national timberlands. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 3 v. (1247 p.). U.S. Congress. Hoi~se Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittee on the Environment. Public Land Policy Act of 1971. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on H.R. 7211. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 476 p. Serial no. 92-20. ~ Hearings held July 26, 30, 1971 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affa~irs. Subcommittee on Public Lands. Dispute of titles on public lands. flearing, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 216, 5. 579 [and] S. 721. Sept. 30, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971, 87 p. ~ ~ U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Public Lands. Management practices on public lands. T~earings, 92d Cong., 1st sesa., on S. 350 [and] S. 1734. Washington, U.S. Govt. PrintS Off, 1971. 3 v. Part 1-Atlanta,~ Ga-Part 2, Portland, Org.-P~th 3, Syracuse, NY. U. S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials, and Fuels. Mining activities in the Custer and Gallatin National Forests in Montana. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print, Off., 1971. 144 p. ~ ~ Hearingsheld August 18, 1971, BillIngs, Mont. ~ U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Indian Affairs. Federal lands in trust for tribes in~flnnesota and Wisconsin. Hearing 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 1217 [and] S. 1230. Mars 26, 1971. Wash- ington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 72 p. ~ . U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and jnsular Affairs. 4iaska native land claims. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 35, S. 8~5, and S. 1571. Apr. 29, 1971 Part 2. Washington, U.S. govt. Print. Off., 1971 389-501 p. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Alaska native land claims. Hearings, 92d Cong.~ 1st sess., on S. 35, 5. 835 and S. 1571. Wash- ington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 20 p. ~ ~ . Hearings held Feb. 18 . . . Apr. 29, 1971. Part 3-Appendix. U.S. Congress. House~ Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcomndttee on Indian Affairs. Alaska native land claims. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on HR. 3100, H.R. 7039, and HR. 7432. Washington; U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 387 p. ~ ~ ( ~ ~ ~ ~ Hearings held May 3-7, :1971 Serial no. $~2-~1O.~ ~ . ~ REGIONAL PLANNING ~ * ~ U.s. Congress.. Joint Economic Committee. ~ Subcommittee on Urban Affairs. Regional planning issues. hearings, 92d Cong. 1st sess. Part 2. Washington, ~ JJ.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971 1~9-299 p. ~ ~ The p~pei's and comnients here reproduced were solicited by the Subcom- mittee as observations on a Subcommittee proposal to reorganize F~deral relations with regional, state~ and local bodies through a sy~tem of Federal ~adrninistrative regions exercIsing near-final authority over planning within their regions. Contributors include John BebotLt, Richard Burton, Selma Mushkin, William Shore and Others. PAGENO="0132" 128 U.S. Congress. Joint Economic Committee. Subcommittee on Urban Affairs. Re- gional planning issues. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess. Part 3. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1~71. 301-544 p. Hearings held May 11 . . . 18, 1971. RURAL DEVELOPMnNT, REGIoNAL DEVELOPMENT U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Subcommittee on Rural Development. Rural development. Hearing, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 1612 .Part 1. Apr. 23, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 316 p. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Subcommittee on Rural Development. Rural development. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on 1. Balanced national growth policy, 2. National rural development program, 3. S. 1612, the Rural Community Development Revenue Sharing Act of 1971, 4. Reorganization of U.S. Department of Agriculture and related agencies. Part II. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 373 p. Hearings held Apr. 29 ; June 16 and 17, 1971. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Subcommittee on Rural Development. Rural development. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess. Part III. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 973 p. Hearings on 1. Balanced national growth policy ; 2. National rural devel- opment program ; 3. 5. 1612 ; 4. ReorganIzation of U.S. Department of Agricul- ture and related agencies. Hearings held May 3, 1971, Sioux City, Iowa ; May 4, 1971, Vermillion, S. Dak. ; July 8, 1971, Montgomery, Ala. ; July 9. Tifton, Ga. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Subcommittee on Rural Development. Rural development. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 2223, the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act and amendment no. 153 (to S. 1483) , to establish the rural community development bank. Part 4. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 677 p. Hearings held July 23 . . . Sept. 24, 1971. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Subcommittee on Rural Development. Rural `development. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on 1. Balanced national growth policy ; 2. National rural development pro- gram ; 3. S. 1612, the Rural Community Development Revenue Sharing Act of 1971 ; 4. Reorganization of U.S. Department of Agriculture and related agencies. Part 5. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 403 p. Hearings held Sept. 9, 1971, Stillwater, Okla. and Sept. 10, 1971, Lincoln, Nebr. U.S. Congress. Senate. . Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Subcommittee on Rural Development. Rural development. Hearing, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 1612. Fart 6. Sept. 20, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 121 p. A bill to establish a revenue-sharing program for rural development. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Public Works. Subcommittee on Flood Control and Internal Development. Appalachian Regional Development Act amendments of 1971. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on H,.R. 53i6 and related bills. Title 3. Mar. 15, 16, and 17, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print, Off., 1971. 271 p. To extend the Public Works Acceleration Act, the Public Works and Eco- nomic Development Act, 1965, and the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Subcommittee on Agricultural Credit and Rural Electrification. Farm Credit Act of 1971. Hear- ings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 1483. May 17, 18, and 20, 1971. WashIngton, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 464 p. A bill to further provide for the farmer-owned cooperative system of mak- ing credit available to farmers and ranchers and their cooperatives, for rural residences, and to associations and other entities upon which farming operations are dependent, to provide for an adequate and flexible flow of money into rural areas, and to modernize and consolidate existing farm credit law to meet current and future rural credit needs, and for other purposes. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Government Operations. Revitalization of rural and other economically distressed areas. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on 5. 10. Part 1. Apr. 27 and 28, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 197 p. PAGENO="0133" 129 A bill to establish a national policy relative to the revitalization of rural and other economically distressed areas by providing incentives for a more even and practical geographic distribution of industrial growth and activity and developing manpower training programs to meet the needs of Industry, and for other purposes. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Subcommittee on Agricultural Credit and Rural Electrification. Insured FHA operating loans. Hearing, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 290 and S. 578. Mar. 9, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 41 p. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Public Works. Subcommittee on Economic Development. Creation of an Upper Missouri River Economic Development Commission, 92d Cong., 1st sess. Feb. 24, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 69 p. Serial no. 92-H5 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Public Works. Subcommittee on Economic Development. National economic development program. Part 1. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on possible new approaches to economic development legis- lation. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 708 p. Hearings held Feb. 19-20, 1971, Raleigh, N.C. ; Feb. 26, Wichita, Kans.; Mar. 5-6, Memphis, Tenn. Serial no. 92-114 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Public Works. Subcommittee on Economic Development. National economic development program. Part 2. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 705-1559 p. Serial no. 92-114 Hearings held Mar. 31, Apr. 1 and 2, 1971, Los Angeles ; Apr. 5, Albu- querque, N. Mex. ; Apr. 6, Santa Fe, N. Mex. U.S. Congress, Senate. Committee on Public Works. Subcommittee on Economic Development. National economic development program. Part 3. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print Off., 1971. 1561-2651 p. Hearings held Apr. 14 and 15, 1971, Seattle ; Apr. 16, Fairbanks, Alaska; Apr. 17, Anchorage, Alaska ; Apr. 19, Bethel and Nome, Alaska. U.S. Congress House Select Committee on Small Business Subcommittee on Small Business Problems in Smaller Towns and Urban Areas. The impact of Federal installations on small business. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1-st sess., pursu- ant to H. Res. 5 and 19. Vol. 2. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print Off., 1971. 203-530 p. Hearings held Santa Fe, N. Mex., Aug. 9, 1971 ; Albuquerque, N. Mex., Aug. 10, 1971 ; Denver, Cob., Aug. 12 and 13, 1971 ; Washington, D.C., Sept. 16, 1971. . U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Public Works. Public Works Acceleration Act amendments of 1971 and Public Works and Economic Development Act amendments of 1971. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on HR. 5376 and related bills. Titles I and IL Mar. 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 489 p. To extend the Public Works Acceleration Act, the Public Works and Eco- nomic Development Act of 1965, and the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965. WATER POLLUTION AND SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Public Works. Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution. Water pollution control legislation, part 2. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 75, S. 192, S. 280,. S. 281, S. 523, S. 573, S. 601, 5. 679, 5. 927, 5. 1011, S. 1012, 5. 1013, S. 1014, S. 1015, and S. 1017. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 599-1161 p. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Public Works. Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution. Water pollution control legislation. Parts 3 and 4. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 75, S. 192, S. 280, S. 281, 5. 523, S. 573, S. 601, S. 679, S. 927, S. 1011, S. 1012, S. 1013, S. 1014, S. 1015, and S. 1017. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 2 v. (1163-1908 p.) Serial no. 92-I~9 General appendix section I, additional statements and materials; section II. comments on draft print of ruly 2, 1971. PAGENO="0134" ILS. Congress. Senate. Committee on Public Works. ~ Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution. Water pollution control legi~lat1on: ~ ocean dumping.~ Part 5. Eearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 75, S. 192, S. 280, 5. 281, S. 523, S. 573, S. 601, S. 679, S. 927, 5. ioii;s. 1012, S. 1013, S. 1014, 5. 1015, and S. 1017. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 1909- 2514 p. Hearings held Mar. 26, 1971, Rehoboth Beach, Del. and June 16, 1971, Washington, D.C. Serial no. 92-1110 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Op~rationa ~JOnservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee. Mercury pollution and enforcement `of the Refuse Act of 1899 (part 1) . Hearing, 92d Cong., 1st sess., July 1, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 1089 p. Includes. reprints of publication entitled "Mercury" by Katherine and Peter Montague, "Industrial water pollution and the Refuse Act, a second chance for water quality," by William H. Rodgers, Jr., from the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, April 1971, and "Permits for work and struc- tures in, and for discharges or deposits into navigable waters," by the Corps of Engineers, 1971 ~ireliminaryedition. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Public Works. Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution. Water pollution control legislation, Refuse Act Permit Program. Part 9. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 75, S. 192, ~S. 280, S. 281, 5. 523, S. 573, S. 601, S. 679, S. 927, S. 1011, S. 1012, 5. 1013, S. 1014, S. 1015, and S. 1017. June 22 and 23, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 4291-4415 p. ~ ~ ~ Serial no. 92-1127 15.5. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce. Subcommitteeon the Environment. Refuse Act permit program. Hearings, 92d Cong.,lst sess. Feb. 18 and 1~, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 219 p. Serial 92-7 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcommittee on Public Health and ~ Welfare. Prohibit certain no-deposit, no-return containers. Hearing, 91st Cong., 2d sess., ~ on ~ H.R. 14863 and HR. 17805 ; HR. 18773, H~R. 18988, and 11.11. 18999. Sept. 18, 1970. Wash- ington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 61 p. Serial no. 91-88 u;S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce. Subcommittee on Oceans and Atmosphere. Ocean waste disposal. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 307, S. 1082, S. 1238, and S. 1286. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 340 p. Hearings held Mar. 2 . ~ . . Apr. 28, 1971. Serial no. 92-11 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Subcom- mittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation. Ocean dumping of waste mate- rials. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on HR. 285, HR. 336, H.R. 337, H.R. 548, H.R. 549, ~H.R. 805, HR. 807, HR. 808, H.R. 983, H~R 1095, H.R. 1329, H.R. 1381, H.R. 1382, HR. 1383, H.R. 1661, H.R. 1674, H.R. 2581, HR. 3662, H.R. 4217, HR. 4218, HR. 4247, H.R. 4359, H.R. 4360, H.R. 4361, H.R. 4584, HR. 4719, H.R. 4723, HR. 5049, H.R. 5050, H.R. 5239, H.R. 5268, H.R. 5477, HR. 5705, HR. 6305, H.R. 6582, H.R. 6610, HR. 6771, H.R. 7619, and H.R. 8039. Apr. 5, 6, 7, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 533 p. Serial no. 92-2 PUBLIC Wonics Pno~ncrs U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources. Federal financing and investigations of recla- mation projects. Hearing, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 24 [and]. S. 1026. June 24, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print Off., 1971. 57 p. U.S. Congress. S*~nate. Committee on Public Works. Subcommittee on Flood Con- trol-Rivers and Harbors. Water resources projects of the Corps of Engineers. Hearing, 92d Cong., 1st sess. July 28, 1971. Washingt~n, U.S. Govt. Print Off., 1971. 43 p. Serial no. 92-1125 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Public Works. Subcommittee on Flood Con- trol-Rivers and Harbors. The effect of channelization on the environment. I I 130 PAGENO="0135" 131 flearing, 92d Cong., 1~t sess. July 27, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,~ 1971, 442 p. . Serial no. 92-H24 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation. Water Resources Research Act amendments. Hearing, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on HR. 1400 and related bills June 29, 19Th Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 181 p. Serial no. 92-16 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation. Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 amend- ments. Hearing, 92d Cong., 1st ses., on HR. 7854 and HR. 8052. July 12, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print Off., 1971. 74 p. Serial no. 92-17 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Public Works. Subcommittee on Flood Con- trol and Internal Development. River basin monetary authorizations. Disaster Relief Act amendments. Hearing, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 2887, HR. 6269, HR. 6834, S. 1237, and H.J. Res. 893. Nov. 10, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1972. 50 p. U.S Congress. House. Committee on Public Works. Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors. Tybee Island, Georgia, Galveston Harbor, Texas. Hearing, 92d Cong., 1st sess. June 21, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 19 p. 92-11 Concerns a proposed beach erosion control and hurricane protection project at Savannah Beach in Tybee Island, Georgia, and a Federal navigation proj- ect consisting of a channel 36 feet deep and 1200 feet wide extending from the port facilities at Galveston through Galveston Bay to the 40-foot harbor en- trance-a distance of about 4 miles. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Public Works. Subcommittee on Flood Control-Rivers and Harbors. Projects of the Corps of Engineers and the Soil Conservation Service. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 114 p. Hearings held Apr. 27, 28, and May 25, 1971. Serial No. 82-H15. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations. Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee. Stream channelization ( part 1 ) . Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess. May 3 and 4, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 388 p. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations. Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee. Stream channelization, (part 2 ) . Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess. June 3 and 4, 1971. 389-1272 p. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations. Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee. Stream channelization. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess. Part 3 and 4. June 9, 10 and 14, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 2 v. Appendix 24, p. 2265-2590, contains "task force reports on Federal facilities and Federal procurement referred to during testimony of Donald M. Nosi- man, Asst. Administrator for Media Programs, EPA." U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation. Amend Water Resources Planning Act. Hear- ing, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on H.R. 6359. Apr. 26, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 36 p. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation. Interior Department water and power orien- tation briefing. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess. Mar. 23 and 24, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt Print. Off., 1971. 77 p. Serial No. 92-2. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources. Water Resources Planning Act. Hearing, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 1398. Apr. 23, 1.71. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 92 p. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources. Water resources research. Hearing, 92d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 121, S. 219, and S. 2428. Oct. 13, 1971. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 100 p. PAGENO="0136" 132 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Agriculture. Subcommitee on Conservation and Credit. Watershed projects. Hearings, 92d Cong., 1st sess. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1972. 73 p. Serial No. 92-0. Hearings held Feb. 19, Sept. 16, and Oct. 5, 1971. Watershed projects: Clarence Cannon Memorial Watershed, Missouri; Clear Creek, Nebraska; East sector Whitewater River, Kansas; Hargis Creek, Kansas; Kadashan Bottom, Oklahoma; Lovelock Valley, Nevada; Oak-Middle Creek tributaries of Salt Creek, Nebraska; Stone Corral, Cali- fornia; and West Upper Maple River, Michigan. PAGENO="0137" APPENDIX C THE NATIONAL LAND USE POLICY PROPOSALS / PAGENO="0138" PAGENO="0139" 92D CONGRESS 1ST SEssioN S. 632 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES FEBRUARY 5 (legislative day, JANUARY 26), 1971 Mr. JACKSON (for himself, Mr. ALI~OTT, Mr. CHURCH, Mr. GRAVEL, Mr. JORDAN of Idaho, Mr. Moss, and Mr. STEVENS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs * A BILL To amend the Water Resources Planning Act (79 Stat. 244) to include provision for a national land us~ policy by broad- ening the authority of the Water Resources Council and river basin . cQmmissions~and by providing fin~ancial assistance for statewide land use planning. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- tives of the United States of America. in Congress assembled, That the Water Resources Planning Act (79 Stat. 244), as amended (82 Stat. 935), is further amended by this Act to read as follows: * "SECTIoN 1. This Act may be cited as the `Land and Water Resources Planning Act of 1971'. "Sno. 2. In order to insure that the Nation's limited land vII.-O * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 & (135) PAGENO="0140" I resource base is properly planned and managed and in order to meet the Nation's rapidly expanding demands for water, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to en- courage the conservation, development, and utilization of the land and water resources of the United States on a com- prehensive and coordinated `basis by the Federal Govern- ment, States, localities, and private enterprise with the co- operation of all affected Federal agencies, States, local governments, individuals, corporations, business enterprises, and others concerned. "TITLE I-LAND AND WATER RESOURCES OQUNCIL "SEC. 101. (a) There is hereby established a Land and Water Resources Council (hereinafter referred to as the `Council'). "(b) The Council shall be composed of the Vice Presi- dent; the Secretaries of Agriculture; Commerce; Health, Education, and Welfare; Housing and Urban Development; the Interior; Transportation; and the Army; the Chair- men of the Council on Environmental Quality and the Fed- eral Power Commission; and the Administrator of the En- vironmental Protection Agency. "(c) The Vice P;r~sident shall be the Chairman of the Council. "(d) The Chairman of the Council shall request the 136 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PAGENO="0141" 137 3 heads of Federal agencies who are not members of the 4Joun- cil to participate with the Council when matters affecting their responsibilities are considered by the Council. " (e) The Council shall have a Director, who shall b~ appointed by the President . by and with the consent of the Senate. He ~ shall serve at the pleasure of the President and shall be compensated at the rate provided for level IV of the Executive Schedule Pay Rates (5 U.S.C. 5315) . The Di- rector shall have such duties and responsibilities as the Chair- man, after consultation with the members of the Council, may. assign. " (f) Each member of `~ the Council shall designate a member of his staff to work with the Director in formulating policies for the approval of the Council. These designees shall meet at the call of the Director. " (g) In addition to the designee appointed pursuant to subsection (f), each member of the Council shall appoint one member of his staff as a permanent liaison officer between the Council and the department, council, or commission represented by the member. "SEc. 102. The Council shall- "(a) prepare an inventory and maintain a continu- ing study of the land resources of the United States, and report biennially to the President and the Congress on land resources and uses, projections of development and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PAGENO="0142" I 138 4 ~ 1 ~ uses .ofi~M;~a1idana1yses of current and emerging prob- 2: ~ 1ein~f1anduse; ~ ~ ~ S 3 " (b) mainlain a continuing study ~f the adequacy .4 c~f a&rnin~trative an4 s1~tutory means of the ooordina- 5 tion of Federal prograar~s which have an impaet upon 6 ~ land use and of the oompatibi1it~y of such programs with 7 State and local land-use planning and management ac- 8 * `t,ivities; it shall `appraise the adeq~iacy of existing ~ and ~9 proposed Federal policies and programs which affect 10 land use ; and it shall make recommendations to the i:t President with respect to such policies and. programs; 12 . " (c) ~ maintain a continuing study and issue bien- 13 nially or at such less frequent intervals as ~ the Council 14 ~ may determine, an assessment `of the adequaóy of sup- 15 plies of water ~ necessary to meet the water requirements 1.6 in each water resource region in the United States and 17 the national interest therein; and 18 "(d) maintain a continuing study of the relation of 19 regional or river basin plans and prograi'ris to the re- 20 quirements of larger regions of the Nation and of the 21 adequacy of administrative and statutory means for the 22 coordination of the water and related land resources poli- 23 cies and~ programs of the several Federal agencies it 24 shall appraise the adeqnacy of existing and proposed policies and programs to meet. such requirements; and it PAGENO="0143" 1 shall make re~xmmendations to the President with re- 2 spect to Federal policies and programs. , ~ 3 "SEc. 103. The Council shall establish, after such con- ~L sultation with ~ other interested ~ntities; both Federal and 5 rion~Federa1, as the Council may find appropriate, and with 6 the . ~p~proval of the. ~Th~csident, princ~ip1es, ~ standards, and 7 procedures fo~ Fedthtl participants in the. preparation of 8 ~ comprehensive ~ regional. ~ or river basin plans and for the 9 ~, formulation arid evaI~nation of. Federal water and related land 10 ~ . resources proj~ts. Such.. procedures~ may include provision lit for Council revision of plans. for Federal. projects intended to 12 be proposed in any plan or revision ~thereof being prepared 13 by a. river basin planiiing commission. ~ . ~ 14 "SEc. 104. Upon receipt of a plan or i'evision thereof 15 from ally river basin oonnnission uzider the provisions of 16 . section 204 (~ ) of. this. Act, the Council shall review the plan 17 ~ or revision with special regard to-p "(a) the efficacy of such plan. or revision in acbi~v- 19 ing optimum n~e of the~ land ~nd water resources in the 20 area involved; 21 "(b) the effect of the plan on the achievement of 22 other programs for the development of agr~cu1tura1, 23 urban, energy, industrial, recreational, fish and wild- 24 1if~,; mid other resources of the entire Nation; ~nd 25 "(c) the contributions which such plan or revision I 139 5 I PAGENO="0144" I . ~ 140 6 1 will make in obtaining the Nation's economic, soolal, 2 and ethrironmental goals. 3 Based on such review the Council shall- 4 " (1) formulate such recommendations as it deems 5 desirable in the national interest; and 6 " (2) transmit its recommendations, together with 7 the ~ plan or revision of the river basin commission and 8 the views, comments, and reoornmendations with respect 9 to such plan or revision submitted by any Federal 10 agency, Governor, interstate commission, or United 11 States section of an international commission, to the 12 . President for his review and transmittal to the Congress 13 with his recommendations in regard to authorization of 14 Federal projects. ~ ~. 15 "SEc. 105. The Council shall- . ~ 16 "(a) consult with other officials of the Federal 17 Government responsible for the administration of Fed- 18 eral land use planning assistance programs to States, 19 their political subdivisions, and other eligible agencies 20 in order to enhance coordination; and 21 " (b) periodically review (1) provisions of the 22 statewide land use plans, (2) State water resources 23 planning programs, and (3) interstate agency studies 24 and plans, to the extent necessary or desirable for the 25 proper administration of this Act. PAGENO="0145" 141 7 1 "FEDERAL PLANNING INFORMATION CENTER 2 "SEC. 106. (a) The Council shall develop and maintain 3 an information and data center, with such regional branches 4 as the Council may deem appropriate, which has on file- 5 " ( 1 ) copies of all approved statewide land use 6 plans, inchiding approved modifications and variances; 7 " (2 ) copies of all federally initiated and federally 8 assisted plans for activities which directly affect or in- 9 volve land use ; ~ 10 " (3) to the extent practicable and appropriate, the 11 plans of local goverinnent and ~ private enterprise which 12 have more than local significance for land use planning; 13 " (4) statistical data and information on past, pres- 14 ent, and projected land use patterns which are of national 15 significance; 16 " (5) studies pertaining to techniques and methods 17 for the procurement, analysis, and evaluation of infor- mation relating to land use planning and management; "(6) such other information pertaining to land-use 20 planning and management as the Council deems appro- 21 priate. 22 "(b) All Federal agencies are required, as a part of 23 their planning procedures on projects involving a major 24 land-use activity, to consu v' 1 ~he Council for the purpose 25 of determining whether the proposed activity would conflict 75-793 0 - 72 - 3M PAGENO="0146" I . . 1 in any way with the . plans of other Federal, State, or local 2 ~ agencies. In the event ~ a conflict is ~ discovered, the matter 3 shall be. reported t~ the Council. If, the conflic~ is not re- 4 ~o1ved by the agenck~s. involved within a reasonable period 5 of time, the Council shall investigate the conflict and re- 6 port its findings, along with its recommendation ~ concerning 7 the proper resolution of the issue, to the ~ Congress, the 8 . President, the State agency or agencies responsible for land- 9 use planning and enforcement of any approved statewide 10 land use plan in the State concerned, and any other Sta~te i:t or local agency involved. ~ ~ 12 " (c) The Council shall make the information main- 13 tamed at the center' available to Federal, State, and local 14 agencies involved in land us~ planning and to members of :1_5 the public, to the extent J)racticable. The Council may charge 16 reasonable fees to ~ defray the expenses incident to making 17 such information available. ` ~ ` 18 "TITLE II-EJVER `BASIN COMMISSIONS 19 "CREAPION OF COMMISSIONS 20 "SEC. 201; (a) The.President is authorized `to declare 21 the establishment of a river basin land and water resources 22 commission upon. request thei'etor by the Council, or request 23 addressed to the Council by a State within which all or part `~ of the basin or basins concerned are located if the request by 25 the Council or by a State (1) defin~s the area; river basin, or PAGENO="0147" group of related river basins for which a commission is re- quested, (2) ~ is made in writing by the Governor or in such manner as ~ State law may provide, or by the Council, and ~ (3 ) is con~uirred in by the Council and by not less * than one- half of the States within which portionsof the basin or basins concerned are located and, in the event the Upper Colorado River Basin is invOlVe(l, liv at lea~t three of the four States of~Colorado, New Mexiëo, Vtali, and Wyoming or, in the eVeflt the~Columbi:a River Basin is involved, by at least three Of ~he four States of Idaho, ` Montana, Oregon, and Washing- tion. Su~h coneurrenees shall be in writing. " (b) Each such commission for an area, river basin, or group of river basins shall, to the extent consistent with see- tion 401 of this Act- ~ " (1 )~ serve as the principal agei*~y for the eoo~di- nation of Federal, ~ State, interstate, local, and nongov- ornment plans for the development of land and `water resourt~es in its area, river basin, or group of river basins; "(2) ~on written request of the Council `and of the Goveitiors of not less than one-half of the participating States, prepare and keep up to date, to the extent practicable, a comprehensive, coordinated joint plan of Federal, `regional, State; local, "and nongovernmental plans which significantly involve `land use or have sig- I 143 1 2 3 4 `5 6 7 8 9 ~1o 11 12 13 14 15' 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 PAGENO="0148" 144 10 nificant impacts upon land-use patterns ; &f zoning and other 1and-i~se regulations. The comprehensive plan shall specifically indicate the relation of planned or proiposed Federal projects to land-usc development in the region; " (3) prepare and keep up to ~ ~1ate, to the extent practicable, a comprehensive coordinated joint plan for Federal, regional, $tate, local, and nongovernmental development of water and related resources. Phe plan shall include an evaluation ~f all reasonable alternative means ~yf achieving optimum development of water and related land roaources ~f the area, basin, or basin~, and it may be pre~ared in ~stages, including recommendations with respect to individual projects; " (4) recommend long-range schedule of priorities for the collection and analysis of basic data a~nd for in- v~tigation, planning, and construction of projects; and "(5) foster and undertake such studies of land-use and water resources problems in its area, river basin, or group of river basins as are necessary in the prepa- ration of the plans described in clauses (2) and (3) of this subsection. "(c) River basin commissions established pursuant to the Water Resources Planning Act (79 Stat. 244) prior to the date of enactment of this amendment shall continue to function after its enactment, and shall be governed by its terms. I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PAGENO="0149" I 145 1 "MEMB~RSHIP OF COMMISSIONS 2 "SEc. 202. Each river basin commission shall be corn- 3 posed of members appointed as follows: 4 " (a) A chairman appointed by the President who shall 5 also serve as chairrnan and coordinating officer of the Federal 6 members of the cornrnission and who shall represent the 7 Federal Government in Federal-State relations on the corn- 8 mission and who shall not, during the period of his service 9 on the commission, hold any other position as an officer or 10 employee of the United States, except as a retired officer or 11 retired civilian employee of the Federal Government. 12 " (b) One member from each Federal . department or 13 independent agency determined by the President to have a 14 substantial interest in the work to be undertaken by the corn- 15 mission, such member to be appointed by the head of such 16 department or independent agency and to serve as the repre- 17 sentative of such department or independent agency. 18 "(c) One member from each State which lies wholly or 19 partially within the area, river basin, or group of river basins 20 for which the commission is established, and the appoint- 21 ment of each such member shall be made in accordance with 22 the laws of the State which he represents. In the absence 23 of governing provishns of State law such State member shall 24 be appointed and serve at the pleasure of the Governor. 25 "(d) One member appointed by any interstate agency PAGENO="0150" 146 1 created , by an * interstate cOIflpklCt to which.. the conseiit of 2 Congress has beeii given, and whose . jurisdiction exteiid.s 3 to the lands or waters (if the. area, i'i~'er basin,. or group of 4 . ~ river 1)asins for which the river basin commission is created. 5 ~ . " (e) When deeiiied appropriate by the President, one 6 member, who shall, be appoiiited by the President, *fi~orn the 7 United `States .sectioii of any international commission cre- 8 ated by a treatyto~which the consent of the Senate has been 9 given, and whose jurisdjetion e~tends to the waters of the 10 area, riyer basin, or group of riv&r basins for which the river 11 basin commission is established. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 12 ~ "OROANI74~TIQN OF COMMISSIONS 13 * "SEC. 203.. (a) Each river basis. commission shall orga- 14 . nize for: the perfoi~mance ~ of its. functions within ninety days ~ 15 after the President shall 1~iave leclared ~the estabjishment of 16 ~such commission, subject ~ to the avaUalbility . of funds for 17 oarryhig on its work. A commissiou. shall terminate~upon 18 decision of the Oouncil or. agreement of. a majority of the * 19 states composing the eo~r~mission, Upon such termination, 20 all property, assets, aM records. of the commission shall 21 thereafter be turned over tio such agencies. Qf the United States 22 and the participating States' as shall. be appropriate in the 23 circumstances: Provided, `That studies, data,, and other ma- 24 terials useful in land and water resources planning `to. any PAGENO="0151" 147 13 of~ ~ the participants shall b~ kept freely available to all such participants. " (b). State members of each commission shall elect a vice chairman, who shall. serve also as chairman and co- ordinaling officer of the State members of the commission and who shall represent the State governments in Federal- Staterelations on the commission. " (c) Vacancies in a commission shall not affect its powers but shall be filled in the same ~ manner in which the original appointments were made : Provided, That the chairman ~ and vice chairman may designate alternates to act for them during temporary absences. ~ ~ " ~(.d) In the work of the commission every reasonable er~dea,vor shall be. made to arrive at a consensus of all members on all ~lssttes ;. but failing this, full opportunity shall be afforded each member for the presentation and re- port of ind~viduaI VIeWS : ~ P~rovided, That at any~ time the cQmmission fails to act ~by reason of absence of consensus, the position of the chairman, acting in behalf of the Fed- eral members, and the vice chainna~n, acting uvon instruc~ tions of the State members, shall be set forth in the record: Provided further, That~ the. chairma~i, in consulta- tion with the vice chairman, shall have the final authority, in the. absence o~ an applicable bylaw adopted by the corn- 2 .3 4 5. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 PAGENO="0152" mission or in the absence of a consensus, to fix the times and places for meetings, to set deadlines for the submis- sion of annual and other reports, to establish subcommit- tees, and to decide such other procedural questions as may be necessary for the commission to perform its functions. "DUTIES OF THE OOMMISSTONS "SF13. 204. Each river basin commission shall- " (a) engage in such activities and make such studies and investigations as are necessary and desir- able in carrying out the policy set forth in section 2 of this Act and in accomplishing the purposes set forth in section 201 (b) of this Act; " (b) submit to the Oouncil and the Governor of each participating State a report on its work at least once each year. Such report `shall be transmitted through the President to the Congress. After such transmission, copies of any such report shall be sent to the heads of such Federal, State, interstate, and international agencies as the President or the Governors of the participating States may direct; "(o) si~bmit to the Council for transmission to the President and by him to the Congress, and the Governors and the legislatures of the participating States a oom~ prehensive, coordinated, joint plan, or any major portion thereof or necessary revisions thereof, for water and I I I 148 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PAGENO="0153" 149 15 1 related land resources development in the area, river 2 basin, or group of river basins for which such commission 3 was established. Before the commission submits such a 4 plan or major portion thereof or revision thereof to the 5 Council, it shall transmit the proposed plan or revision 6 to the head of each Federal department or agency, the 7 Governor of eaoh State, and each interstate agency, from 8 which a member of the commission has been appointed, 9 and to the head of the United States section of any inter~ 10 national commission if the plan, portion or revision 11 deals with a boundary water or a river crossing a 12 boundary, or any tributary flowing into such boundary 13 water or river, over which the international commis- 14 ~ has jurisdiction or for which it has responsibility. 15 Each , such department and agency head, Governor, 16 interstate agency, and United States section of an in~ 17 ternational commission shall have ninety days from 18 the date of the receipt of the proposed plan, portion, 19 or revision to report its views, comments, and recom- 20 mendations to the commission. The commission may 21 modify the plan, portion, or revision after considering 22 the reports so s~xbmitted. The views, comments, and 23 recomrnen&i~tions submitted by each Federal dep~u't~. 24 merit or agency head, Governor, interstate agency, and 2~ United States section of an. ix~ter~iational commission PAGENO="0154" I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2~ 150 10 shall be transmitted to the ~ council with the plan, por- tion, or revision; " (d ) undertake such sttidies of regional land use conditions, patterns, and projections as may be requested by the Council and concurred in by the Governors of at least one-half of the States inciud~d within t;he commis- sion's jurisdiction ; and " ( e ) submit to the Council at the time of subniitting the plans and studies required by subsections (e) and ( d) of this section any recommendations it may have for continuing the functions of the cOmmission and for implementing the plans or study recommendations, in- eluding means of keeping the plans up to date." "POWERS * AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS OF COMMISSIONS "SEC. 205. (a) For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this title, each river basin commission may- " ( 1 ) hold sUch hearings, sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, and print or otherwise reproduce and distribute so much of its proceedings and reports thereon as it may deem advisable; * "(2) acquire, furnish~ and equip such office space as is necessary; ~` (3) use the United States, mails in the same man~ TIlE PAGENO="0155" 151 17 tier and upon the same cOnditiOl3S as departments and agencies of the United Suites; " (4) emp'oy and coiiipensa±e such pei'sonnel. as it deems advisable, including consultants, at rates not to exceed $100 per diem, and retain and compensate such professional or technical service firms as it deems ad- visable on a contract basis; " (5) arrange for the services of personnel from any State or the United States, or any subdivision or agency thereof, or any intergovernmental agency.; " (6) make arrangements, including contracts, with any participating government, except the United States or the District of Columbia for inclusion in a suitable retirement and einploy~ benefit system of such of its personnel as may not. be eligible for or continuing in an- other governmental retirement or employee benefit sys- tem or otherwise provide for such coverage of its personnel; "(7) purchase, lure, operate, and maintain passen- ger motor vehicles; and "(8) incur such necessary expenses. and exercise such other powers u~s are consistent with and reason- ahly required to perform its functions tinder this Act. "(b) The chairman of a river basin commission, or 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ~15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 PAGENO="0156" 152 18 any member of such commission designated by the chair- man thereof for the purpose, is authorized to administer oaths when it is determined by a majority of the commis- sion that testimony shall be taken or evidence received under oath. "(c) To the extent permitted by law, all appropriate records and pa.pers of each river basin commission shall be made available for public inspection during ordinary office hours. " (d) Upon request of the chairman of any river l)asln commission, or any member or employee of such commis- sion designated by the chairman thereof for the purpose, the head of any Federal department or agency is author- ize~d ( 1 ) to furnish to such connnission such information as may be necessary for carrying out its functions and as may be available to or procurable by such department or agency, and (2) to detail to temporary duty with such commission on a reimbursable basis such personnel within his administrative jurisdiction as it may need or beheve to be useful for carrying out its functions, each such detail to be without loss of seniority, pay, or other employee status, "(e) The chairman of each river basin commission shall, with the concurrence of the vice chairman, appoint the personnel employed by such commission, and the chair- man shall, in accordance with the general policies of such I 2 C) 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PAGENO="0157" commission with respect to the work to be accomplished by it and the timing thereof, be responsible for ( 1 ) the supervision of persoi~ne1 employed by such commission, (2) the assignment of duties and responsibilities among such personnel, and (3 ) the use and expenditure of funds avail- able to such commission. "COMPENSATION OF `COMMISSION MEMBERS ` "SEC. 2O~. (a) Any member of a river basin commis- sion appointed pursuant to section 202 (b) and (e) of this Act shall receive no additional compensation by virtue of his membership on the commission, but shall continue to receive, from appropriations made for the agency from which he is appointed, the salary of ` his regular position when engaged in the performance of the duties vested in the commission. " (b) Members of a commission, appointed pursuant ` to section 202 (c) and (d) of this Act, shall each receive such compensation as may be provided by the State or the inter- state agency, respectively, which they represent. "(c) The per annum compensation of the chairman of each river basin commission shall be determined by the Presi- dent, but when employed on a full-time annual basis shall not exceed the maximum scheduled rate for grade GS-18 of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended; or when engaged in the performance of the commission's duties on an inter- I 153 19 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2~ PAGENO="0158" 154 20 1 mittent basis such compensation shall be not more than $100 2 * per day and `shall not exceed $12,000 in any year. 3 ~ ~ "SEC. 207. (a) Each commission shall recommend what 4 share c~f its expenses shall be borne by the Federal Govern- 5 ment, but such share shall be subject to approval by the 6 Council. The remainder of the commission's expenses shall be 7 otherwise apportioned as the commission may determine. 8 Each commission shall prepare a budget annually and trans- 9 mit it to the Council and the States. Estimates of proposed 10 appropriations from the Federal Government shall be in- 11 eluded in the budget estimates submitted by the Council 12 under the Budgeting arid Accounting Act of 1921, as 13 amended, and may include an amount for advance to a corn- 14 mission against State `appropriations for which delay is an- 15 ticipated by reason of later legWative sesSions. All sums 16 appropriated to or otherwis~ received by a commission shall 17 be credited to the' commission's account in the Treasury of 18 the United States. 19 "(b) A commission `may accept for any of its purposes 20 and functions, appropriations, donations, and grants of 21 money, equipment,. supplies, materials, and services from 22 any State or tha United States or any subdivision or agency 23 thereof, or intergovernmental agency, and may receive, 24 utilize, and dispose of the same. 25 F' (c) The comiuission shall keep accurate accounts of PAGENO="0159" 155 21 all receipts and disbursements. The accounts shall be audited at least annually in accordance with generally ac~epted auditing standards by independent certified or licensed public accou~iitaiits, certified or licensed by a regulatory authority of a State, and the ~eport of the audit shall be included in and beconie a part of the annual report of the commissioiii. "(d) The accounts of the commission shall be open at all rea~onab1e times for inspection by representatives of the jurisdictions and agencies which make appropriations, donations, or grants to the commission. "TITLE Ill-A. NATIONAL, LAND-USE POLICY ~N1) PROGRAM OF ASSISTANCE TO THE STATES "PART 1-FINDINGS, PoLloy, AND PURPOSn "FINDINGS. "SEcI. 301. (a) The Congress hereby finds that there is a national interest in a more efficient arid comprehensive sys- tem of national, regional, statewide, and local land-use plan- ning and decisionmaking and that the rapid and continued growth of the Nation's population, expanding urban develop- ment, prolifereting transportation systems, large-scale indus- trial aiid ecollOlulo growth, conflicts in emerging patterns of land use, the fragmentation of governmental entities exercise- ing land-use planning powers, and the increased size, scale, and ilnpa(t of private actions, have created a situation in 1 2. 4 U 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11~7 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PAGENO="0160" which land-use management dccisioi~s of national, regional, and statewide eonc~rn are often being made on the basis of expediency, tradition, short-term economic considerations, and other factors which are often unrelated to the real con- cerns of a sound national land-use policy. " (b) The Congress further finds that a failure to con- duct competent, ecologically sound land-use planning has, on occasion, required public and private enterprise to debiy, litigate, wnd cancel proposed public utility and industrial and commercial developments because `of unresolved land-use questions, thereby causing an unnecessary waste of human and economic resources `and a threat to public services and often resulting in decisions * to locate utilities and industrial and commercial activities in `the area of least public and polithcal resistance, but without regard to relevant ecological and envirGnmental land-use considerations. "(c) The Congress further finds that many Federal agencies are deeply involved in national, regional, State, and local land-use planning and management actAvi'ties which because of the lack of a consistei~t policy often result in need- less, undesirable, and costly conflicts between agencies of Federal, State, `and local government; that existing Federal land-use planning program's have a significant effect upon the location of population, economic growth; and on the character of industrial, urb~an, `and rural development; that the purposes 156 22 1 2 9 4 0 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PAGENO="0161" 157 23 of such programs are frequently in conflict, thereby subsidiz- ing undesirable and cc~stly patterns of land-use development; and that a concerted effort is necessary to interrelate and coordinate existing and future Federal, State, local and pri- vale decisionmaking within a system of planned develop- ment and established priorities that is in accordance with a nati~nai land-usc policy. " (d) The Congress further finds that while the primary responsibility and constitutional authority for land-use plan- fling and management of non-Federal lands rests with State and local government under our system of government, it is increasingly evident that the manner in which this responsi- hulity is exercised has a tremendous influence upon the utiJity, the value, and the future of the public domain, the national parks, forests, seashores, lakeshores, recreation, and wilderness areas and other Federal lands ; that the in- terest of the public in State and local decisions affecting these areas extends to the citizens of all States; and that the failure to. plan and, in some cases, poor land-use planning at the State and local level, pose serious problems of broad national, regional, and public concern and often result in irreparable damage to commonly owned assets of great na- tional importance such as estuaries, ocean beaches, and other areas in public ownership. "(e) The Congress further find's that the land-use de- `1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 25 75-793 0 - 72 - 11 PAGENO="0162" cisions of the Federal Government often have a tremendous impact upon the ecology, the environiiient and the patterns of development in lQcal coniintmities ; tlmt the s11l)stallce and the nature of a national land-use policy ought to take into ~ coiisideratioii the iieeds and interests of State, regional, and local government as well as those of the Federal (~overii- inent, private groups and individuals ; and that Federal land- use decisions require greater Partic~Pat1~11 l)V State ~fld local government to insure that they are in accord with the highest and best sta.iidards of land~use management and the desires and asl)irations of State and local govcriuiieiit. "DECLARATION OF POLICY "SEC. 302. (a) Iii oidei It) ploluOte the geiicral welfare and to provide full and wise application of the resources of the Federal G-overmne~t in strengtlieniiig the environ- mental, recreational, eConoillic, and social well-being of the people of the United States, the Congress declares that it is a continuing responsibility of the Federal Government, consist- ent with the r~sponsibihity of State and local governnient for land-use planning and inaiiagement, to undertake the de- velopinent of a national policy, to be known as. the national lurid-use policy, ~vli job shall iiicorporate 000l( )gicnl, dlvi ion- mental, esthetic, 00010 imic, sociul, and other appropriate fac- tors. Such policy shall serve as a guide in making specific decisions at the national level which affect the pattern of 158 24 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PAGENO="0163" 159 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 environmental, recreational, and industrial growth and de- velopment on the Federal lands, and shall provide a frame- work for development of regional, State, and looal land- use policy. " (b) The Congress further declares that it is the na- tional land-use policy to-~- ~ " ( I ) favor patterns of lancl~use planning, manage- ment, and development which are in accord with sound ecological principles! and which encourage the wise and balanced use of the Nation's land and water resources; " (2) foster beneficial economic activity and de- velopment in all States and regions of the United States ; " (3) favorably influence patterns of population dis- tribution in a manner such that a wide range of scenic, environmental, and cultural amenities are available to the American people; "(4) contribute to the revitalization of existing rural communities and encourage, where appropriate, new communities; "(5) assist State government to assume land-use planning responsibility for activities within their boundaries; "(6) facilitate increased coordination in the ad- ministration of Federal program's so as to encourage desirable patterns of 1and-u~se planning; ftfl!d PAGENO="0164" 160 26 "(7) systematize method~s fGr the exchange of land use, envir&rirnental, and ecological infonnatio~ in order to assist all levels ~ government in the development and implementation of the national land-use policy. "(c) The Congres~ further declares that intelligent land-use planning and managernent provides the single most important institutio~ial device for preserving and enhancing the environment, for ecologically seund development, arid for maintaining omdjtions capa~ble of supporting a quality life and providing the material means necessary to improve the natinnal standaird~ of living. "PURPOSE "SEC. 303. It is the purpose of this title- " (a) to establish a national policy to encourage and assist the several States to more effectively exercise their constitutional responsibilities for the planning, manage- ment, and administration of the Nation's land resources through the development and implementation of compre- hensive statewide land use plans and management pro- grams designed to achieve an ecologically and environ- mentally sound use of the Nation's land resources; "(h) to establish a grant-in-aid program to assist State and local governments to hire and train the per- sonnel, and establish the procedures necessary to develop, implement, ~nd administer a statewide land use plan 1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PAGENO="0165" . 161 27 1 ~ which meets Federal guidelines and which will be re- 2 sponsive and effective in dealing with the growing 3, pressure of conflicting demands oii a finite land resource 4 base; ~ . 5 " (c) to establish reasonable and flexible Federal . 6 guidelines and requirements to give individual States 7 guidance in the development of statewide land use plans 8 and to condition the distribution of certain Federal funds . 9 on the establishment of an adequate statewide land use 10 plan; 11 "(d) establish the authority and responsibility of the 12 Land and Water Resources Council (formerly the Water 13 Resources Council) to administer the Federal grant-in- 14 aid program, to review the statewide land use plans and 15 State water resources programs for conformity to the 16 provisions of this title, arid to assist in the coordination 17 of Federal agency activities with statewide land use 18 plans; 19 "(e) to develop and maintain a national ~ with 20 respect to federally conducted and federally supported 21 projects having land use implications; and 22 "(f) to coordinate planning and management re- 23 lating to Federal lands with planning and management 24 relating to non-Federal lands. PAGENO="0166" 162 28 "PART 2-ST~TEwInE AND INT1~RSPATE LAND USE PLANNING GRANTS "SEC. 304. (a) In order to carry. out purposes of this title the Council is authorized to make land use planning grants to- " ( 1 ) an appropriate single State agency, designated by the Governor of the State or established by law, which has statewide land use planning responsibilities and which meets the guidelines and requirements set out in section 305 of this title; and "(2). any interstate agency which is authorized by Federal law oi~ interstate compact ~to plan for land use. "(b) The Council is authorized to make land use plan- fling grants in accordance with the provisions of this title to assist and enable eligible State and interstate regional agencies- "(1) to prepare an inventory of the State's or re- gion's land and related resources; "(2) to compile and analyze information and data related to- "(A) population densities and trends; "(B) economic characteristics and projections; "(C) directions and, extent of urban and rural growth and changes; "(D) public works, public capital improve- .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PAGENO="0167" 163 29 ments, land acquisitions, and ecoflomic development programs, projects, and associated activities; " ( E ) ecological, environmental, ge~logica1, and physic~al conditions which are of relevance to dcci- sions concerning the location of new communities, commercial development, heavy industries, transpor- tation and utility facilities, and other land uses; " (:F') the projected land-use requirements with- in the State or region for agriculture, recreation, urban growth, commerce, transportation, the gen- eration and transmission of energy, and other im- portant uses for at least fifty years in advance; * "(G) governmental organization and financial resources available for land-use planning and man- agement within the State and the p~litical siibdivi- sions thereof or within the region; and "(H) other information necessary to conduct statewide land-use planning in accord with the provisions of *this title. "(3) te provi*de technical assistance and training programs for `appropriate interstate, State, and local agency personnel on the development, implementation, and management of statewide land-use planning pro- grams; .1 2 3 4 5 7 10 Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 PAGENO="0168" 164 " (4) to arrange with Federal agenc~e*s for the coop~ erative planning of Federal }ands boated within and near the St~ate'~ or region's boundaries; " (5) to develop, use, and encourage common in- formation and data bases for Federal, regional, State and local land-use planning; " (6) to establish arrangements for the exchange of land-use planning information among `State agencies; and among the various governments within each State and their agencies ; between the governments and agen- thea of dififerent St~ttes ; and among States and interstate compact agen~ios, river basin commi~sionis, and regional commissions; "(7) to establish arrangements for the exchange of information with the Federal Government for use by the Ooundll and the State and interstate agencies in dis- charging their responsThilities under this Act; "(8) to conduct hearings, prepare reports, and solicit comments on reports concerning specific portions of the plans and the plans in their entirety; and "(9) to conduct such other related planning coordination functions as may be approved by Oouncil. 30 1 2 3 4 5. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 and the PAGENO="0169" 165 31 "FEDERAL GUIDELINES AND REQUIffl~MENTS FOR STATE- WIJiE LAND USE PLANS "SEC. 305. ~ (a) A State agency specified in section 304 (a ) must nieet or give assurances that it will meet the following re(luirelnents ill the ~deve1opment of a statewide land use plan to be eligible for statewide land use planning grants under this title- " ( 1) a shigle State agency, designated by the Gov- ernor or established `by law, shall have primary authority and responsibility for the development and administra- tion of the statewide land use plan; " (2) a competeht and adequate interdisciplinary professional and technical staff, as well as special con- sultants, will be available to the `State agency to develop the statewide land use plan; "(3) to the maximum extent feasible, pertinent local, State, and Federal plans, studies, information, and data on land use planning already available shall be utilized in order to avoid unnecessary repetition of effort and expense. "(b) During the five complete fiscal year period fol- lowing the initial publication of regulations by the Council implen~ienting the pro~risions of this title, the State agency 1 2 3 4 5 6 7, 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .19 20 21 22 23 PAGENO="0170" 166 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 2:3 24 a2 must, as a conthtiQr~ of continued grant eligibility, `develop a statewide land use plan wjiloh- "(1) identifies the portions of the Stute subject to enforcement of the statewide land. use plan, which shall include all lands within, the boundaries of the State except-~- "(A) lands the use of which is by law subject solely to the' discretion ~of or which is held in trust by the .Fe4eral Government,, its o~1cers or agents; and " (B) at the disç~retion of the State agency, lands located within the boundaries of any incorporate4 city having a population in excess of two hundred and fifty thousand or. in excess of 20 per centum of the State's total populatioia, which has land use plan- .njng and regulation authority; " (2 ) identifies those areas ` (within the State, except where otherwise.indicated)' " (A) where ecological, environmental, geo~ logical, and physical conditions dictate that certain types of land use activities are undesirable; "(B) where the, highest and best use, based upon projected local, St&te, and National needs, on the Statewide Outdoor Recreation Plan required PAGENO="0171" 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 167 33 under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, and upon other studies, is recreational-oriented use; " (C ) which are best suited for agricultural, ~ mineral, industrial, and commercial development; " (D) where transportation and utility facilities are or it~ appears should, in the future, be located; " (E) which furnish the amenities and the basic essentials to the development of new towns and the revitalization of existing communities; " (F) which, notwithstanding Federal owner- ship (11' jurisdiction, ai'e important to the State for industrial, comniercial, mineral, agricultural, recrea- tional, ecological, or other purposes ; and " (~3)* whichaitliough located outside the State, have substantial actual or potential impact upon land u~e patterns within the State ; and "(H) which ar~ of unusual national signifi- cance and value. "(3) includes appropriate provisions designed to insure that projected requirements for material goods, natural resources, energy, housing, recreation, and en- vironmental amenities have been given consideration; "(4) includes provisionsdesigned to insure that the plan is consistent with apphcal)le local, State, regional, PAGENO="0172" 168 1 2 a 4 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 aiid Federal standards relating to the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment and the conservation of public resources; " (5) provides. for assuring orderly patterns of land use and development; " (6) includes provisions to insure that transporta- tion and utility facilities do not interfere with Congres- sional policies relating to the status and use of Federal lands, and are established in compliance with regional and State needs, State policies, and policies and goals set forth in other Federal legislation; " (7) provides for iiieasures such as buffer zones, scenic easements, prohibitions against noiicoiiforiniiig uses, . and other means of assuring the preservation of aesthetic qualities, to insure that federally designated, financed, and owned areas, including but not limited to elements of the national park system, wilderness areas, and game and wildlife refuges are not damaged or de- graded as a result of inconsistent or incompatible land use patterns in the same immediate geographical region; "(8) provides for flood plain identification and management; "(9) provides for other appropriate factors hav- ing significant land use implications. "(c) To retain eligibility for statewide land use plan- PAGENO="0173" : 1 fling grants after tile cud of five CO1111)leto fiscal years fi'oin 2 the beginnilig of the first fiscal year after the initial publi- 3 cation of regulations by the Council inipleinenting the pro- 4 visions of this title, the statewide land use pla.n developed 5 in accordance with subsection (b) of this section and the 6 State land use planning agency must ~ meet the following 7 Federal guidelines and requirements- 8 " ( 1) the statewide land use plan must be approved 9 by the Council in accordance with section 306; 10 " (2) the agency must have authority to implement 11 the approved plan and enforce its provisions ; 12 " (3) the agency's authority may include the power ~13 to acquire interests in real property; 14 " (4) the agency's authority must include the power 15 to prohibit, under State police powers, the use of any 16 lands in a manner which is inconsistent with the pro- 17 visions of the plan; 18 "(5) the agency must have authority to conduct 19 public hearings, allowing full public participation and 20 granting the right of appeal to aggrieved parties, in con- 21 nection with the dedication of any area of the State as an 22 areas subject to restricted or special use under the state- 23 wide land use plan; and 24 "(6) the agency must have established reasonable 25 procedures for periodic review, of the plan for purposes PAGENO="0174" 170 36 1 of granting variances from and making modifications of 2 the plan, including public notice and hearings, in order 3 to meet :c~haflged future conditions and requirements. 4 " (d) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to pre- 5 elude a * State from planning for land ~ use or from imple- 6 menting a statewide land use plan~in stages, with respect to 7 either ( 1 ) particular geographical areas including but not 8 limited to coastal ~ zones, or (2) particular kinds of uses, as 9 long as the other requirements of this Act are met. 10 ~ " (e) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to preclude 11 the delegation by the State agency to local goveriimental en- 12 titles of authority to I)lafl for laud use and enforce land use 13 restrictions adopted- pursuant to the statewide land use plan, 14 ~ including the assignment of funds authorized by this Act, ~ to the extent available, except that- 16 "(1) the State agency shall have ultimate responsi-' 17 bility for approval and coordination of local plans and 18 enforcement procedures; 19 "(2) only the plan submitted by the State agency 20 will be considered by the Council; 21 "(3) the ~statewride land use plan submitted by the 22 State agency must be consistent with the guid~lines esta~- 23 lished by this Act; and 24 "(4) the State agency shall be responsible to the 25 Council for the management and control of any Federal PAGENO="0175" 171 of 37 * funds assi~ned or delegated to any ~gency of local gov- ernment *ithin the State concerned. "REVIEW OF STATEWIDE LAND USE PLANS "SEC. ~O6. (a) Upon completIon of eachstatewideland 1 2 3 4 5 ~ use p~an-~ 6 " ( 1 ) The State agenc~ responsible fbr the development 7 the plan shall submit it to the Cothidil. 8 " (2) The Council shallsiibmit the plan for review and 9 comments to those Federal agencies the CounCil considers to 10 *` have `significant interest in or impact upon land Use within ii the State concerned. A period of njn~t~~ days shall be pro- 12 vided foi~ the review. ia "(3) Upon Completion of the review period' established 14 by paragraph (2) ofthis subsection, the Council shall review 15 the plan along with the agency comments arid approve the 16 plan if it- 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 " (A) conforms with the' policy, guidelines, and re- quirements declared in this title " (B) is compatible with `the plans and proposed plans of other States, so that regional and national land us~ considerations are accommodated; and "(C) does not corifli'ct with the objectives of Fed- eral programs authorized by `the Congress. "(b) A State may at any time make thodifications of or grant variances from its statewide land use plan:. Provided, PAGENO="0176" 172 38 That such modification or variance does not render the state- wide land use plan incc~nsistent with the policies, guidelines, and requirements declared in this Act : And provided further, That such modification or yariance is reported to the Council on or before its effective date. The Council shall approve the modification or variance unless it causes the plan to no longer meet the criteria set forth in subsection (a). " (c) ( 1 ) In the event the Council determines that grounds exist for disapproval of a statewide land use plan or, having approved such a plan, ~ subsequently determines that grounds exist for withdrawal of such approval pursuant to section 314, it shall notify the President, who shall order the establishment of an ad hoc hearing board, the member- ship of which shall consist of: " (A) The'Governorof a State other than that which submitted the plan, whose State does not have a partic- ular interest in the approval or disapproval of the plan, selected by the Ptesident, or such alternate person as the Governor selected by the President may designate; "(B) One knowledgeable, impartial Federal official, selected by the President, who is not a member of or responsible to a member of the Council; "(C) One knowledgeable, impartial private citizen, selected by the other two members: Provided, That if the other two members cannot agree upon a third member 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PAGENO="0177" 173 39 1 within twenty days after the appointment of the second 2 member to be appointed, the third member shall be se- 3 leoted by the President, 4 " (2) The hearing board shall meet as soon as practi- 5 cable after all three members have been appointed. The tJoun- 6 cii shall specify in detail to the hearing board its reasons for 7 considering disapproval or withdrawal of approval o~ the 8 plan. Th~ hearing board shall bold such hearings and receive 9 such evidence as it deems necessary. The hearing board shall 10 then determine whether disapproval or withdrawal of ap- 11 proval would be reasonable, and set forth in detail the rea- 12 sons for its determination. If the hearing board determines 13 that disapproval would be unreasonable, the Oouncii shall 14 approve the plan. 15 " (3) Members of hearing boards who are not regular 16 ~ full-time officers or employees of the United States shall, 17 while carrying out their duties as members, be `entitled to 18 receive compensation at a rate fixed by the President, but 19 not exceeding $150 per diem, including travel time, and 20 while away from their homes or regular places of business 21 they may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem 22 in lieu of subsistence as authorized by law for persons in 23 Government service employed intermittently. Expenses shall 24 be charged to the account of the Exeéutive Office of the 25 President. 75-793 0 - 72 - 12 PAGENO="0178" 174 40 1 * " (4) Administrative support for hearing ~ boards shaH 2 be provided by thê~ Executive Office of the President. 3 " (5) The President may issue such regulations as may 4 be necessary to carry ~ut the ~provisions of this subsection. 5 "cooitDTNATróN OF PEIiER~L PROOI~AM~ 6 . ~ ~ . ~ ~ "SF0. 807 (a) All Ft!deral agencies conductii~ or sup- 7 porting activities involvhig land use h~ an area subject to an 8 ~ approved statewide land ii~e plan shall operate in accordance 9 with the plan. In the event that a departure ~ from the plan 10 appears ` necessary in the ña.tióná~l int~rest, the agënc~ shall 11 submit the matter to the Coutft~i1. The Council may apfrove 12 ~ a federally condm~tedor supported projecCa portion or por- 18 . tioris of which may be inconsiStent with the ~ plan ~ if it finds 14 that ( 1 ) the project is essential to the national interest and 15 (~2) there is no reasonable atid prudent alternative which 16 * would nOt be inconsistent with an approved stat~wid~ land 17 use ~pIan. In the event that the Council fails to approve the 18 proj~eAt, the project may be uñdertakèn only upon the express 19 approval ~Of the President. The President may approve proj- 20 ects inconsistent with a statewide land use plan only when 21. overriding conaideratioris of national policy reqnire such 22 approval. 23 " (b} State and local governments snbi~tting a~plica- 24 tions for Federal assistance for activities having signifi- 25 cant land use implications in an area subject to an approved PAGENO="0179" 175 41 1 statewide landuse plan shall indicate the views of the State 2 . land use planning agency as to the consistency ~ of such a activities with the plan. Federal agencies shall not approve 4 proposed projects that are inconsistent with the. plan. 5 " (c) All Federal agencies responsible for administering 6 grant, , loan, or guarantee programs for ~ activities that have 7 a tendency . to influence patterns of land use and develop- 8 nient, including but not limited to home mortgage and inter- 9 est subsidy programs and water . and . sewer facility :i~o construction programs, shall take cognizance of approved :ti statewide land use plans and shall administer such programs 12 seas ~o enable them to support controlled development, rather 13 than administering~ them so as merely .to.~respond to uncon- 14 trolled growth and chuige. . . .: ~ ~ :15 " (ii) ` Federal agencies coiiducting or supporting public 16 . works activities iii areas not subject to an approved state- 17 wide land use plan shall, to the extent practicable, conduct 18 those activities in such a manner as to minimize any ad- 19 verse impact on the environment resulting from decisions con- 20 corning land. use. . ~. . 21 "(e) Officials of the Federal Government charged with 22 respohsibility for the management of federally owned lands 23 shall take cognizance of the planning efforts of State land 24 use planning ~agencies of States within which and near the ~ boundaries of which such Federal lands are located, and PAGENO="0180" 176 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 42 shall coordinate Federal land use planning for those lands with State land use planning to the extent such coordination is practicable and not inconsistent with paramount national policies, programs, and interests. "P~i~T 3-STATE WATER REsouRcEs PLANNING GRANTS "SEC. 308. in recognition of the need for increased participation by the `States in water resources planning, and to carry out the pu.iiposos of this title, the Council is author~ izod to make water resources planning grants to an appro~ priate ~ing1e State agency designated by the Governor of the State oi~ esta~bli~hed by law to carry out a program which meets the critoria set forth in sectiGn 309. The agoncy may be the came as the one designated pursuant to section 305 (a) (1) for administration of the statewide lwnd use plan. "SEC. 309. The Oouncil ~hai1 approve any program for *~ coinprehon~ive water and related. land r~aources planning which is st~bmitted `by a State, if such program- "(a) provides for comprehensive planning with re~ spect to intrastate or interstate water resources, or both, in such State to meet the needs for water and water-. related activities, taking into account prospective de-. mands for all purposes served through or affected by water and related land resources development, with ade- quate provision for coordination with all Federal, State, PAGENO="0181" 177 43 and local agencies, and nongovernmental entities having responsibilities in affected fields; " (b) provides, where comprehensive statewide de- velopment planning is being carried on with or with- out assistance under section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, or underthe Land and Water Oonservation Fund Act of 1965, for full coordination between comprehensive water resources planning and other statewide planning programs and for assurances that such water resources planning will be in conformity with the general develop- ment policy in such State; " (0) designates a State agency to administer the program; ~ " (d) provides that the State agency will make such reports in such form and containing such infor- mation a~ the Oouncil from time to time reasonably requires to carry out its functions under this title; "(e) sets forth the procedure to be followed in carrying out the State program and in administering such program; "(f) provides such accounting, budgeting, and other fiscal methods and `procedures as are necessary for keeping appropriate accountability of the funds and for the proper and efficient administration of the pro~ gram; and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 `19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PAGENO="0182" 178 1 2 3 & 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2~i 44 " (g) in~1udes adequate J)FOViSiOfl for consolidation or coordination with; the statewide land use plan. The1 Uouncil shall not disapprove any State water resources prograni without first giving reasonable notice and an op- ~)ortuhIity. for hearing to the State agency administering such program. "PART 4-ADMINJsTiw~IoN OF LAND USE AND WATER ~ RESOURCES PLANNING GRANTS ~ ~ ~ "ALLOTMENTS "SEC. 310, ~ (a), From the sum appropriated pursuant to section 404 the Council is authorized to make State land use planning grants to agencies ~ the proposals of ~ which are ap- proved in any amount not to exceed ninety per. centum of ~ the est~imated ~cost of the planning for ~ the five full fiscal years after t1ie~ initial publication by the Council of regula- tions im~)1emeI1trng the provisioii~ of this title. Thereafter, grants may be made izi an amount not ~ to exceed two-thirds of the State agency's planning and~perating costs. "(b.~ Land use planthng grants shall be allocated to the States with approved programs based on regulations of the Council, which shall take into account the amount and na- ~ure of the. State's land resource base, population, pressures resulting from growth, financial need, and other relevant factors. "(c) Any, land use planning grant made for the pux~ PAGENO="0183" 179 ~ 45 1 ~ pos.e of this t~1e shaH increase, ~nd not replace State funds 2 presently available for State land use planning activities. 3 Any grant made pursuant to this title shall be in ~ddition to, 4 and may be used jointly. with, grants or other funds available 5 for land use planning surveys~ orinvestigations under other 6 federally assisted programs~~ . ~ . ~ I , `.`*(d) No funds granted pursuant to, this Act may be 8 expended for. the. acq~iisition of any int~e~t in real property. 9 . "SEC. ~1 i.~ (a) . From the sums appropriated pursuant 10 , to section 404 of this. A4~t for any fiscal year tjie Council 11 shall from time to time make allotments to the ~ States for 12 water resources planning, in accordance. with its regulations 13 and the provisions of this Act, on the basis ~f (1) the popu- 14 lation, (2) the land area, (3) the need for corriprehensive 15 water and related land resources planning ~program ... s, and 16 (4) the financial ~need .01 the respective States. For the pur- 17 poses. of this section . the ~ popuiat~on . of the States shall be 18 determined. on .the basis of the latest estimates available ~ from th~ Department of Commerce, and the land area of the ~ States shall be determined on the basis of the official records 21 of the united States Geological Survey. . 22 "(b) From each.. State's allotm~nt under this sectiOn 23 ~ any . fiscal year.. the Council shall ~ to such. State an 24 amount .which is not more than 5O~ pet êentum of th~ cost 25 of carrying out its State program approved under section PAGENO="0184" 180 46 309, including the cost of training personnel for carry- ing out such program and the cost of administering such program. "PAYMENT& "SEC. 312. The method of computing and paying amounts pursuant to this title shall be as follows: " ( 1 ) The Council shall, prior to the beginning of each calendar quarter or other period prescribed by it, esti- mate the amounts to be paid to each State under the pro- visions of this title for such period, such estimate to be based on such records of the State and information fur- nished by it, and such other investigation, as the Council may find necessary. " (2) The Council shall pay to the State, from the allot- ments available therefor, the amounts so estimated by it for any period, reduced or increased, as the case may be, by any sum (not previously adjusted under this para- graph) by which it finds that its estimate of the amount to be paid such State for any prior period under this title was greater or less than the amount which should have been paid to such State for such prior period under this title. Such payments shall be made through the disbursing facilities of the Treasury Department, at such times and in such installments as the Council may determine. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 .9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 PAGENO="0185" "FINANCIAL R~XJORDS "SEC. 313. (a) Each recipient of a grant under this Act shall keep such records as the Director of the Council shall prescribe, including records which fully disclose the amount and disposition of the funds received under the grant, and the total cost of the project or undertaking in con- nection with which the grant was made and the amount and nature of that portion of the cost of the project or undertak- ing supplied by other sources, and such other records as will facilitate an effective audit. "(b) Such other records shall be kept and made avail- able and such reports and evaluations shall be made as the Director may require regarding the status and application of Federal funds made available under the provisions of this title. "(c) The Director of the Council and the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representative's, shall have access for the purpose of audit and examination to any books, documents, papers, and records of the recipient of the grant that are pertinent to the determina- tion that funds granted are used in accordance with this Act. "SANCTIONS FOR NONCOMPLIANCE "SEC. ~314. (a) The Council shall have `authority to ter- minate any financial assistance extended to a State agency for 181 1 47 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 PAGENO="0186" 182 48 1 land use planning under this title and withdraw its approval 2 ~ of a statewide hind use plan, whenever, after the State cørt- 3 cerneiihas been ghTen notice of a propoaed~terminatiôn and 4 .~ an opportunity for hearing, the Couneil finds that- 5 " ( 1 ) the desigrmted State land us~ planning agency 6 ha~ failed to adhere to the guidelines and requirements of 7~ this title in the development `of the land use plan; 8 " (2) the State has not ena~tód legislation which 9 allows the State ageiicy to meet the requirements of sub- 10 section (c) of section 305 ; Or 11 " (3) the plan submitted by such State and approved 12 under section 306 has `been so changed or so admin- 13 istered ~ thai it no longer complies with a requirement 14 of such section. 15 " (b) Whenever `the Council after reasonable notice and 16 opportunity for hearing to a State agency finds that- 17 ". .( 1 ) the program submitted by such State and ap- 18 proved. under section 309 has been so changed that it no 19 longer complies with a requirement of such section; or 20 " (2.) in~ the administration of the program there is 21 a failure to comply substantially with such a requirement, 22 the Council shall notify such agency that no further payments 23 will be made to the State under this title until it is satisfied 24 that~ there will no longer be any such failure. Until the Coun- PAGENO="0187" cii is so satisfied, it shall make no further payments to such State for waiter resourcc~s planning under this title. "SEC. 315. (a) After the end of five fiscal years from the beginning of the first fiscal year after the initial issuance of regulations by the Council implementing the provisions ~ of this title, no Federal agency shall, except with respect to Federal lands, propose or undertake any new action or fi- nancially support any new State-administered action which may have a substantial adverse environmental impact or which would or would tend to irreversibly or irretrievably commit substaiitial land or water resources in any State which has not prepared and submitted a statewide land use plan in accordance with this Act. ~ " (b) TJ1i0ii al)I)licat1o1~ by the Governor of the State or head of the Federal agency concerned, the President may temporarily suspend the operation of paragraph (a) with respect to any part~cular action, if he deems such suspension necessary for the public health, safet~y, or welfare: Provided, That no such suspension shall be granted unless the State concerned submits a schedule, acceptable to the Council, for submission of a statewide land use plan: And provided further, Th~.t no subsequent suspension shall be granted un- less the State concerned has exercised due diligence to comply with the terms of that schedule. 183 49 1 2 3 4~ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 PAGENO="0188" 184 50 "TITLE IV-~GENERAL "EFFECT ON EXISPINt~ LAWS "SEC. 401 . Nothing in this Act ~ha11 `be construed- " (a) to expand or diminish either Federal or State jurisdiction, responsibility, or rights in the ~field of land and water resources planning, de~e1oprnent, or control; . ncr to displace, super~ede, limit, or modify any inter- `state compact or the jurisdiction or responsibility of any legally estaibii~hed joint or ` common agency of two or more States, or of two or more States and the Federal Government ; nor to limit the authority of Oongres~ to authorize and fund projects; " (b) to change or otherwise affect the authority or res?onsibility of any Federal official in the discharge of the `duties ~f his office except as required to carry out the provisions of this Act; *" (c) as superseding, modifying, or repealing exist- ing laws applicable to the various Federal agencies ~hi~h are authorized to develop or participate in the development of land and water resources or to exercise licensing or regulatory functions in relation thereto, exce~pt as required to carry out the provisions of this Act; nor to affect the jurisdiction, powers, or preroga- tives of the International Joint Commission, United States and Canada, the Permanent Engineering Board I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PAGENO="0189" 185 I and the United States operating entity or entities estaib~ 2 lished `punsuanl~ to the Columbia River Basin Treaty, 3 signed at W~shington January 17, 1961, or the Inter~ 4 national Boundary and Water Commission, United 5 States and Mexico ; 6 " (d) as authorizing any entity. established or 7 ing under the provisions hereof to study, plan, or recom- 8 mend the transfer of waters between areas under the 9 jurisdiction of more than one river basin commission 10 or entity performing the function of a river basin :ti commission. 12 "DEFiNITIONS 13 "SEc. 402. For the purposes of this Act- 14 "(a) the term `State' means a State, the Dis- 15 trict of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 16 or any territory or possession of the United States; 17 "(b) the term `interstate agency' means any river 18 basin commission or interstate compact agency estab- 19 lished in accordance with Federal law; 20 "(c) the terms `basin' and `river basin' are descrip- 21 tive of geographical areas and have identical meaning; 22 and 23 "(d) the term `new action', as used in section 315, 24 means any action which has not been previously author- 25 ized by the Congress. PAGENO="0190" "AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS "SEC. 403. There are authorized to be appropriated not more than $16,000,000 annually for the administration of this Act, no more than * $10,000,000 of which may be used for contract studies. "SRC. 404. There are hereby authorized to be appro- priated to the Council for grants to States, river basin corn- missions, and interstate agencies not more than $100,000,- 000 annually to carry out the puqioses of this Act. "ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS "SEC. 405. (a) For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act, the Director with the concurrence of the Council may : ( 1 ) hold such hearings, sit and act at such times aiid places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, ~ and print or otherwise reproduce and distribute so much of its proceedings and reports thereon as he may deem advisable; (2) acquire, furnish, and equip such office space as is necessary; (3) use the United States mails in the same manner and upon the same conditions as other departments and agencies of the United States; (4) em- ploy and fix the compensation of such personnel as it deems advisable, in accordance with the civil service laws and Classification Act of 1949, as amended; (5) procure servicesas authorized by section 15 of the Act of August 2, 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a), at rates not to exceed $100 per diem 186 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PAGENO="0191" 187 . 53 1 for individuals ; (6) purchase, hire, operate, and maintain 2 passenger motor vehicles ; and (7) incur such necessary 3 expenses and exercise such ~ other powers as are consistent 4 with and reasonably required for the performance of its 5 functions under this Act. ~ 6 "(b) Any member of the Council is authorized to ad- 7 minister oaths when it is determined by a majority of the 8 Council that testimony shall be taken or evidence received 9 underoath. 10 " (~) To the extent permitted by law, all appropriate i1_ records and papers of the Council may be made available 12 for public inspection during ordi~iary offIce hours. 13 " (d) The Council shall be responsible for (1) the 14 appointment and supervision of its ~ personnel, (2) the as- 15 sigriment of duties and responsibilities among such per- 16 sonnel, and (3) the use and expenditures of funds. 17 "DELEGATIONOP 1?UNCTIONS 18 "SEO. 406. (a) The Council is authorized to delegate 19 to the Director of the Council its administrative functions, 20 including the detailed administration of the grant programs 21 under title III. 22 "(b) The Council may not delegate the responsibilities 23 of a policy nature vested in it by this Act. This restriction 24 applies specifically to, but is not necessarily limited to~ the 25 following responsibilities of the Council- PAGENO="0192" 188 54 1 " ( 1 ) the recommendation function set forth in sub- 2 section (b) of section 106; 3 . " (2) the approval and disapproval functions set 4 forth in section 306; 5 " (3) the approval and disapproval functions set 6~ forth in section 309; 7 " (4) the approval functions set forth in subsection 8 (h) of settion 315; and ~ " (5) the functions set forth in section 410. 10 "UTILIZATION OF P1~RSONNEL 11 "SEc. 407. (a) The Council may, with the consent of 12 the head of any other department or agency of the United 13 States, utilize such officers and employees of such agency on 14 ~ reimbursable basis as are necessary to carry out the pro- 15 visions of this Act. 16 " (b) Upon request of the Council, the head of any 17 Federal department or agency is authorized (1) to furnish 18 to the Council such information as may be necessary for 19 carrying out its functions and as may be available to or 20 procurable by such department or agency, and (2) to do- 21 tail to temporary duty with the Council on a. reimbursable 22 basis such personnel within his administrative jurisdiction 23 as the Council may need or believe to be useful for carrying 24 out its functions, each such detail to be without loss of senior- 25 ity, pay, or other employee status. PAGENO="0193" 189 55 "TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE "SEc. 408. The Council may provide technical assist- ance to any eligible State, river basin commissiOn, or inter- state agency to assist it in the performance of its functions under this Act. "STUDIES "Si~c. 409. The Council may, by contract or otherwise, make studies and publish information on subjects related to State, regional, and national land use planning and water resources use. "RULES AND REGULATIONS "SEC. 410. The Council, except with respect to subsec- (c) of section 306- " (a) shall promulgate rules and regulations for the administration of title III, including the detailed terms and conditions under which grants may be made, and " (b) with the approval of the President, shall pre- scribe such rules, establish such procedures, and make such arrangements and provisions relating to the per- formance of its functions under title III and the use of funds available therefor, as may be necessary in order to assure (1) coordination of the program authorized by this Act with related Federal planning assistance programs, including the program authorized under sec- tion 701 of the Housing Act of 1954 and (2) appro- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 tion 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21, 22 23 24 25 75-793 0 - 72 - 13 PAGENO="0194" 190 56 priatc utilization of other Federal agencies administering programs which may contribute to achieving the pur~ poses of this Act. "(c) shall make such other rules and regulations as it may deem necessary or appropriate for carrying out its duties and responsibilities under the provisions of this Act." 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PAGENO="0195" 191 92D CONGRESS 1ST SESSION S. 992 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Fi~nnrr~~ay 2ii (legislative day, Flmnu\ltY 17), 1971 Mr. BYRD of West Virginia (for Mr. JACKSON) (for himself, Mr. ALLOTT, Mr. BELri\I0N, Mr. FANNIX, Mr. H.~TFIELD, Mr. JORDAN of idaho, and Mr. STEVENS) (by request) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee oii Interior and Insular Affairs 2 3 4 A BILL establish a national land use policy ; to authorize the See- retary of the Interior to make grants to encourage and as- sist the States to prepare and implement land use pro- grams for the protection of areas of critical environmental concern and the control and direction of growth and de- velopment of more than local significance; and for other purposes. Be it enacted &y the Senate and IIous~ of Representa- tives of the United States of America `in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "National Land Use Policy Act of 1971". II To :t PAGENO="0196" 192 2 FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS OF POLICY SEC. 101. (a) The Congress hereby finds and declares that decisions about the use of land significantly influence the quality of the environment~ and that present State and local institutional arrangements for planning and regulating land use of more than local impact are inadequate, with the result- ( 1 ) that important ecological, cultural, historic, and aesthetic values in areas of critical environmental con- cern which ~ are essential to the well-being of all citizens are being irretrievably damaged or lost; ( 2) that coastal zones and estuaries, flood plains, shorelands, and other lands near or under major bodies or courses of water which possess special natural and scenic characteristics are being damaged by ill-planned development that threaten these values; (3) that key facilities ~uch as major airports, high- way interchanges, and recreational facilities are inducing disorderly development and urbanization of more than local impact; (4) that the implementation of standards for the control of air, water, noise, and other pollution is im- peded; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 (5) that the selection and development of sites for PAGENO="0197" 193 3 essential private development of regional benefit has been delayed or prevented; (6) that the usefulness of Federal or federally assisted projects and the administration of Federal pro- grains are beuig in~paired; ( 7) t1i~it largc-seal( (leVelOl)fllelIt often creates a significant adveise impact ilpomi the en\~ironment. (b) The Congress further finds and declares that there is a national interest iii encouraging the States to exercise their full authority over the planning and regulation of non- Federal lands by assisting the States, in cooperation with local governments, in developing land use programs includ- ing unified authorities, policies, criteria, standards, methods, and processes for dealing with land use decisions of more than local significance. DEFINITIONS Snc. 102. For purposes of this Act, (a) "Areas of critical environmental concern" aye areas where uncon- trolled development could result in irreversible damage to important historic, cultural, or esthetic values, or natural systems or processes, which are of more fliumi local signifi- cance; or life and safety as a result of natural hazards of more than local significance. Such areas shall include: (1) Coastal zones and estuaries: "Coastal zones" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 114 15 116 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 PAGENO="0198" 194 4: 1 ~ means the land, waters, and lands beneath the waters 2 111 close proxiiiiity to the coastline (including the Great 3 Lakes ) and strongly inilueiiced by each other, and 4 which extend seaward to the outer limit of the United 5 States territorial sea and inc'ude areas influenced or 6 affected by water from an estuary such as, but not 7 limited to, salt marshes, coastal and intertidal areas, 8 sounds, embayinents, harbors, lagoons, inshore waters, 9 channels, and all other coastal wetlands. "Estuary" 10 means the part of the mouth of a river or stream or :i:t * other body o~ water having unimpaired natural connec- 12 tion with the open sea and within which the sea water 13 is measurably diluted with fresh water derived froiii 14 land. drainage. 15 (2) shorelands and flood plains of rivers, lakes, and 16 streams of State importance; 17 (3) rare or valuable ecosystems; 18 (4) scenic or historic areas; and 19 (5) such additional areas of similar valuable or 20 hazardous characteristics which a State determines to 21 be of critical environmental concern. 22 (b) "Key facilities" are public facilities which tend to 23 induce development and urbanization of more than local 24 impact and include the following: 25 (1) any major airport that is used or is designed 26 to be used for instrument landings; PAGENO="0199" 195 5 (2 ) intercliaiiges betweeii the Iiiten4atc highway Systeni aiid froiitage access ~trcets oi' highways ; niajor intercliaii.ges. between other liniited access highways and frontage access streets or highways ; and (3 ) major recreational lands and facilities. ( c) "Development and land use of regional benefit" includes land use and private development for which there is a demonstrable need affecting the interests of constituents of more than one local government which outweighs the benefits of any applicable restrictive or exclusionary local regulations. (d) "State" includes the fifty States of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT GRANTS SEC. 103. (a) The Secretary of the interior (herein- after referred to as the "Secretary") is authorized to make not more than two annual grants to each State to assist that State in developing a land use program meeting the require- nients set forth in section 104 of this Act. Such grants shall not exceed 50 per centum of the costs of program develop- ment. Prior to making the first grant, the. Secretary shall be satisfied that such grant will be used in development of a land use program meeting the requirements set forth in sec- tion 104. Prior to making a second grant, the Secretary shall 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PAGENO="0200" 196 6 1 be satisfied that the State is adequately and expeditiously 2 proceeding with the development of * a land use program 3 meeting the requirements of section 104. 4 (b) States receiving grants pursuant to this section 5 shall submit to the Secretary not later than one year after the 6 date of award of the grant a report on work completed toward 7 the development of a State land use program. A State land 8 use program meeting the~ requirements of section 104 of this 9 Act shall satisfy the i~equirements for such a report. 10 ~ (c4 The authority to make grants under this section cx- 11 pires three years from date of enactment. 12 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT GRANTS 13 SEC. 104. Following his review of a State's land use pio- 14 gram, the Secretary is authorized' to make a grant to that 15 State to assist it in managing the State land use program. 16 Successive grants for this l)I~1l)0Se 1flfl~ be made annually to 17 any State resubmitting its land use program for review by 18 the Secretary. Grants made pursuant to this section shall nut 19 exceed 50 per centum of the cost of managing the land misc 20 ~rogran~. Grants mithiorized by this section shall be made by 21 the Secretary only if, in his judgenieiit: 22 (a)1 the State's;4tuid use program includes: 23 . . (1) a method for inventorying and desmgnatmg 24 .. areas of critical environrneiital concern; PAGENO="0201" (2) a method for inventorying and designating areas impacted by key fa~i1ities; ( 3 ) a method for exercising State control over the use of land within areas of critical environ- mentai concern and areas irripacited by key facilities; ( 4) a method for assuring that local regula- tions do not restrict or exclude development and land use of regional benefit; ( 5 ) a policy foi' influencing the location of new communities and a iiietliod for assuring appro- 1)riate coiitiols over the use of land around new comniuiiities; ( 6) a method for controlling proposed large- scale development of iiiore than local significance in its impact upon the enviromnerit; (7) a system of controls and regulations per- taining to areas and developmental activities pre- viously listed in this subsection which are designed to assure that any source of air, water, noise, or other pollution will not be located where it would result in a violation of any applicable air, watei, noise, or other pollution standard or implementation plan; (8) a method for periodically revising and up- dating the State land use program to meet changing conditions; and 197 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2() 21 22 23 24 25 PAGENO="0202" 198 8 :i (9) a detailed schedule foi' inipleineiitiiig all 2 aspects of the J)rogra.II1. 3 .. For purposes of complying with paragraphs (1) 4 ~ through (7) of this subsection (a) , any one or a corn- 5 bination of the following general tecllni(lues is accept- 6 al)le : ( i ) State establishinent of criteria ai~d standards 7 . subject to judicial review and judicial enforcement of 8 local implementation and compliance ; (ii) direct State ~9 land use planning and regulation ; (iii) State adminis- :io ~ trative review of local land use plans, regulations and :i:t implementation with full powers to approve or dis- 12 approve. 13 ~ (b) in designating areas of critical eiivironinental 14 concern, the State has not excluded any areas of critical 15 environmental concern to the Nation. 16 (c) in controlling land use in areas of critical en- 17 vironmental concern to the Nation, the State has pro- 18 cedure's to prevent action (and, in the ease of successive 19 gra.nts~ the State has not acted) in substantial disregard 20 for the pttrpeses, policies anti requirements of its land 21 use program. 22 (d) States laws, regulations and criteria `affecting 23 areas and developmental activities listed in subsection 24 (a) of this section are in accordance with the policy, 25 purpose and requirements of this Act; and that State PAGENO="0203" 199 9 1 laws, legUlatiolls tuiid criteria affecting land use iii the 2 coastal zone aiid estuaries further take into account: 3 ( 1 ) the esthetic and ecological values of wet- 4 lands for wildlife habitat, food production sources 5 for aquatic life, recreation, sedimentation coiitroj, 6 and shoreland storm protection ; and 7 ( 2 ) the susceptibility of wetlands to perma- 8 nent destruction through draining, dredging, and 9 filling, and the need to restrict such activities. I 0 ( e ) the State is organized to implement its State I I land use program. 12 (f) the State land use program has been reviewed and approved by the Governor. 14 . (g) the Governor has appropriate arrangements 15 for administering the land use program management 16 grant. 17 (h) the State, in the development, revisioii, and 18 implementation of its land use program, has provided 19 for adequate dissemination of information and for ade- quate public notice and public hearings. 21 (i) the State has: 2~ (1) coordinated with metropolitanwide plans 23 existing on January 1 of the year in which the State 24 land use program is submitted to the Secretary, which plans have been developed by an areawide PAGENO="0204" 200 agency designated pursuant to regulations estab- lished under section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966; (2) coordinated with appropriate neighboring States with respect to lands and waters in interstate areas; ( 3 ) taken into account the plans and programs of other State agencies and of Federal and local governments. (j) the State utilizes for the purpose of furnishing advice to the Federal Government as to whether Fed- eral and federally assisted projects are consistent with the State land use program, procedures established pur- suant to section 204 of the Demomjtratjon Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, and title IV of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968. FEDERAL REVIEW OF GRANT APPLICATIONS AND STATE LAND USE PROGRAMS SEC. 105. (a) The Secretary before making a program rnanagenient graRt pursuant to section 104, shall consult with the heads of all Federal agencies which conduct or participate in construction, development, or assistance pro- grams significantly affecting land use in the State, and shall consider their views and reeommenda~ions. The Secretary shall not approve a grant pursuant to section 104 until he 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PAGENO="0205" 201 has ascertained that the Secretary of ious.ii~g arid Urban Development is satisfied that those aspects of the State's land use program dealing with large-scare development, key facilities, development and land use of regional benefit, and hOW communities meet the requirements of section 104 for funding of a program management grant. (b) The Secretary shall take final action on a Slate's application for a grant authorized under section, 104 not later than six months following receipt for review of the State's land use program. CONSISTENCY OF FEDERAL ACTIONS WiTh STATE LAND USE PROGRAMS SEC. 106. (a) Federal projects and activities signifi- icantly affecting land use shall be consistent with State land use programs funded under section 104 of this Act except ui cases of overriding national interest. Program coverage and procedures provided for in regulations issued pursuant to section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 19~G and title IV of the Intergovern- mental Cooperation Act of 19GB shaH be applied in deter- ininhig whether Federal projects and activities are consistent with State land use programs funded under section 104 of this Act. (b) After December~ 31, 1974, or the date the Secre- tary approve~ a grant under section 104, whichever is. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PAGENO="0206" 202 12 1 earlier, Fedei'al agencies `subiruttiiig statenieiiLs l'c(1U11'Od by 2 section 102 (2) (0) of the National Enviroiiiriei~t~il Policy 3 Act shall include a detailed stateiiient by tile respon~ibie 4 official on the relatioiiship of proposed aetioi~s to any ap- 5 plicabie State land use program which has been found eli- 6 gible for a grant pursuant to section 104 of this Act. 7 FEDERAL ACTION IN TIlE ABSENCE O1~ STATE LAND 8 USE PEOORAMS 9 SEC. 107. Where~any major Federal action significantly 10 affecting the use of non-Federal lands is proposed after 11_ December 31, 1974, iii a State which has not been found 12 eligibTe for a prograni iiianagement grant pursuaiit to see- :13 tioii 104 of this Act, the responsible Federal agency `shall 14 hold a public Iiearmg in that State at least one hundred 15 eighty days in advance of the proposed action concerning 16 the effect of the action on land use taking into account the 17 relevant considerations set out in section 104 of this Act, 18 and shall make findings which shall be submitted for review 19 and coniiiient by the Secretary, and where appropriate, by 20 the Secretary of Tlousiiig and U rban T)evelopineiit. Suchi 21 fiuidings of the responsible Federal agency and comments 22 of the Secretary or the Secretary of Housing and Urban 23 Development shall be part of the detailed statement re- 24 quh1*C(~ by section 102 (2) (C) of the National Environ- 25 mental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). This section PAGENO="0207" 203 :L3 1 shall be subject to exception where the President deter- 2 mines that the interests of the United States so require. 3 ~ AVAILABILITY OF FEDE1~AL EXPERTISE 4 SEC. 108. (a) The Secretary shall provide advice upon 5 request to States concerning the designation of areas of criti- 6 cal environmental concern to the Nation. 7 (b) Federal agencies with data or expertise relative to 8 land use and conservation shall take appropriate measures, 9 subject to appropriate arrangement for payment or reim- 10 bursement, to make such data or expertise available to States 11 for use in preparation, implementation, and revision of State 12 land use programs. 13 GUIDELINES 14 ~ Suc. 109. The President is authorized to designate an 15 agency or agencies to issue guidelines to the Federal agencies 16 to assist them in carrying out the requirements of this Act. 17 ALLOCATION OF FUNDS 18 Sno. 110. (a ) Fund's for grants authorized by sections 19 103 and 104 of this Act shall be allocated to the States 20 based on regulations issued by the Secretary which shall 21 take into account State population and growth; nature and 22 extent of coastal zones and estuaries and other areas of 23 critical environmental concern and other relevant factors. 24 (b) No grant funds shall be used to acquire real prop- 25 erty. PAGENO="0208" 204 14 1 (e) A refusal by the Secretary to provide a program 2 development or program management grant authorized by 3 ~ this Act shall be in writing. 4 MISCELLANEOUS 5 SEc. 1 1 1 . (a) The Secretary shaH develop, after appro- 6 priate consultation with other interested parties, both Fed- 7 eral and non-Federal, such rules and regulations covering 8 the submission and review of applications for grants an- 9 thorized by sections 103 and 104 as may be necessary to :10 carry out the provisions of this Act. 11 (b) A `State receiving a grant under the provisions of 12 section 103 or 104 of this Act, the agency designated by 13 the Governor to administer such grant, and State agencies ~14 allocated a porfion of a grant shall make reports and eval- 15 nations in such form, at such times, and containing such 16 information concerning the status and application of Federal 17 funds and the operation of the approved management pro- 18 grani as the Secretary may require, and shall keep and make 19 available such records as may be required by the Secretary 20 for the verification of such reports and evaluations. 21 (c) The Secretary, and the Oomptroller General of the 22 United States, or any of their duly authorized representa- 23 tives, shall have access, for purposes of audit and examina- 24 tion, to any books, documents, papers, and records ofa grant PAGENO="0209" 205 15 1 recipient that aie J)ertinent to the grant received under the 2 provi~ioi~s of section 1 03 or 104 of this Act. 3 (d) Nothing herein shall be interpreted to extend the 4 territorial jurisdiction of any State. 5 (e) Nothing liereh~ shall be construe(1 to imply Federal 6 consent to 01' ap~)roVal of any State or local actions which 7 may be required or prohibited by other Federal statutes or 8 regulations. APPHOPRIATION AUTHORIZATION 10 SEc. 112. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appro~ ~ priated not to exceed $20,000,000 in each fiscal year, 1972 12 through 1976, for grants authorized by sections 103 and 104 ~ of this Act, such funds to be available until expended. 14 (b) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated 15 such sums as may be necessary for the Secretary of the 16 Interior and the Secretary of housing and TJrban Develop- 17 menit to administer the program established by this Act. 71-793 0 - 72 - 14 PAGENO="0210" AMENDMENTS Intended to be proposed by Mr. Moss (for Mr. JACKSON) (for himself and Mr. ALLOTT) (by request) to S. 992, a bill to establish a nathrnal land use policy; to authorize the Secre- tary of the Interior to make grants to encourage and assist the States to prepare and implement land use programs for the protection of areas of critical environmental concern and the control and direction of growth and development of more than local significance; and for other purposes, viz: 2 3 (a) Amend paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of se~tion 104 by inserting after the word "benefit" and before the colon the following language: ", including a method for exercising State control over the site location and the location of major improvements and major access features of key 6 facilities"; Amdt. No. 996 5 206 92D CONGBESS 2D SESSIoN S. 992 IN THE SENATE OF TIIIE UNITED STATES MARCh 6, 1972 Referred to the Committee on interior and llhsulaI Affairs and ordered to be printed 1 PAGENO="0211" 207 2 (b) Amend section 107 by adding- ( 1 ) an " (a) " before the word "Where" at the be- ginning of the paragraph, and ( 2) the following new subsections: " (1~ ) Section 15 of the Airport and Airway Develop- iiient Act (Public Law 91-258, 84 Stat. 227) is amended l)y adding the following new subsection: " ` (d) Any State which has not been found eligible for a management grant under section 104 of the National Land Use Policy Act by June 30, 1975, shall suffer a reduction of 7 per centum of its entitlement to Federal funds appor- tioned for airport development pursuant to paragraphs (A) and (B ) of subsection (a) ( 1 ) and paragraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (a) (2) of this section, in fiscal year 1976. If that State has not been found eligible `by June 30, 1~976, it shall suffer a reduction of 14 per centum in fiscal year 1977, and if not found eligible `by June 3O, 1977, shall suffer a reduction of 21 per ce~turn in fiscal year 1978. Any funds so withheld shall be included in the aggregate of airport and airway development funds and ~hal1 be made available to States found eligible for fina~icia1 assistance under section 104 of the National Land Use Policy Act ac- cording to the criteria prescribed for the apportionment of such funds, excluding for purposes of computation any State 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 PAGENO="0212" 208 or States found ineligible for financial assistance under sec- tion 104 of the National Land TJse Policy Act.' " (C) ( 1 ) Sectioii 104, title 2~ of the United States Code, is amended by addiii.g the following sllI)sectioll " ` (f) Any State which has itot 1)een found ehgil)le for a management grant tinder section 1 04 of the National T~an(l Use Policy Act by June 30, 1975, shall suffer a reduction ol 7 per centum of its entitlement to Federal-aid high\va.y funds exclusive of planning and research which would otherwise be apportioned to such State in fiscal year 1976. If that State has not been found eligible by June 30, 1976, it shall suffer a reduction of 14 per centum in fiscal year I 977, and if not found eligible by ~Turie 30, 1977, shall suffer a reduc- tion of 21 per centum in fisca' year 1978. Any funds so withheld shall 1)e included in the aggregate of Federal-aid highway funds and shall be made available to States found ehgil)le for assistance under section 1 04 of the National Land Use Policy Act according to criteria presel'il)ed for the ap- portionment of Federal-aid highway funds, excluding for purposes of emnputatioii any State or States found ineligible for financial assi~taiiee under section 1 04 of the National Land Use Policy Act.' ," (2) Section 109 (f) , title 23 of the United States Code, is amended by deleting `or control of' in the first sentence. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 PAGENO="0213" 209 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 4 " (d) Subsectioii 5 (b) of the Land and Water ()onser- vation Act of 19G5 (Public Law 88-578, 78 Stat. 897) is amended by adding after the second paragraph the fol- lowing paragraph " `Any State which has not been found eligible for a management grant under sectioii 104 of the National Land ~se Policy Act i)V June 30, 1975, shall suffer a reduction of 7 P~'~ centum of it~ entitlement under paragraphs ( 1) and ( 2 ) of this subsection in fiscal year 1976. If that State has not. been found eligible by June 30, 1976, it shall suf- fer a reduction of 14 per centum in fiscal year 1977, and if hOt found eligibld3 . l)y Juiie 30, 1977, shall suffer a reduc- tiOll of 21 per c~ntum iii fiscal year 1978. Any funds so withheld shall he included in the aggregate of land arid w afer conservation funds and shall be made available ac- cording to the criteria prescribed for the apportionment of such funds, excluding for purposes of computation any State or States found ineligible for financial assistance under sec- ti()n 104 of the National Land Use Policy Act.' "; (e) Amend the short title on lines 3 and 4 of page 1 by striking "National Land Use Policy Act of 1971" and in- serting in lieu thereof "National Land Use Policy Act of 1972"; PAGENO="0214" 210 a 1 (d) Amend subsection (b) of sectioll 106 aiid further 2 amend section 107 by striking "1974" and inserting in 3 lieu thereof "1975"; and 4 (c) Amend ~cction 112 by striking "1972 through 5 1976" and inserting iii lieu thereof "1973 through 1977". PAGENO="0215" SUMMARIES OF S. 2554~ S. 3l75~ AND S. 3177 S. 2554-To establish a systematic and a comprehensive national land-use * policy. Introduced by Senator Mathias, September 21, 1971. This proposal is similar to S. 632 except for the following differences: (1) The program would be administered by the Secretary of the Interior. (.2) Review procedures are similar to those of S. 992 (but S. 632's disapproval procedure through the ad hoc hearing board is maintained). (3) Guidelines would be formulated by the Domestic Council and the Secretary of the Interior. ( 4) No regional framework for interstate coordination is iden- tified or established. (5) S. 992's lower funding level and smaller Federal share of costs are adopted. (6) Although S. 632's comprehensive, statewide coverage is maintained, integrated with this are three of S. 992's critical areas and uses : key facilities, development and land use of regional benefit, and large-scale development. (7) A few of S. 99'2's implementation criteria are added. S. 3175-To establish a land use policy ; to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make grants to encourage and assist the States to prepare and implement land use programs for the protection of areas of critical environmental concern and the control and direction of growth and development of more than local significance ; and for other purposes. Introduced by Senator Allott on February 15, 1972. This proposal is similar to S. 992 except for the following major differences: (1) A new short title is provided : "Land Use Policy and Plan- ning Assistance Act of 1972" (2) 5. 632's higher funding level and greater Federal share of costs are adopted. ( 3) Authority for program development grants would expire after seven years (not three) and would not be limited to two annual grants only ( 4) This proposal would require an appropriate state agency for administering the land use program management grants. (5) The review process would not enjoy the participation of the Secretary of HTJD. Sixty days prior to disapproval of a State program, the Secretary of the Interior would have to submit the program together with his analysis and comments to the Senate and House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. (6) The Secretary of the Interior would formulate guidelines. (211) PAGENO="0216" 212 ( 7) The proposal does not contain the sanction of a phased re- duction in three grant-in-aid programs added by the Amendments to S. 992. S. 3177-To establish a land use policy ; to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make grants to encourage and assist the States to prepare and implement land use programs for the protection of areas of critical environmental concern and the control and direction of growth and development of more than local significance; to establish guidelines; administer the public land policy; and for other purposes. Introduced by Senators Jordan and Allott on February 16, 1972. Title I of this proposal is identical to S. 3175. Title II of this pro- posal contains the provisions o~ 2450, the Public Land Policy Act, also proposed by Senators Allott ~. ` Jordan. 0 PAGENO="0217" 8 of 7 per centum of it~ eiififJejj~ent ~ withheld shall he in fiscal PAGENO="0218" 210 0 1 (d) Amend sabsection (b) of section 106 and fuitlier 2 amend section 107 by striking "1974" and inserting in 3 lieu thereof "1975"; and 4 (e) Amend section 112 by striking "1972 through 5 1976" and inserting iii lieu thereof "1973 through 1977". PAGENO="0219" SUMMARIES OP S. 2554, S. 3175~ AND 5. 3177 S. 2554-To establish a systematic and a comprehensive; national land-use `policy. Introduced by Senator Mathias, September 21, 1971. This proposal is similar to S. 632 except for the following differences (1) The program would be administered by the Secretary of the Interior. (2) Review procedures are similar to those of 5. 992 (but S. 632's disapproval procedure. through the ad hoc hearing board is maintained). (3) Guidelines would be formulated by the Domestic Council and the Secretary of the Interior. (4) No regional framework for interstate coordination is iden- tified or established. (5) S. 992's lower funding level and smaller Federal share of costs are adopted. (6) Although S. 632's comprehensive, statewide coverage is maintained, integrated with this are three of S. 992's critical areas and uses: key facilities, development and land use of regional benefit, and large-scale development. (7) A few of 5.992's implementation criteria are added. S. 3175-To establish a land use policy; to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make grants to encourage and assist the States to prepare and implement land use programs for the protection of areas of critical environmental concern and the control and direction of growth and development of more than local significance; and for other purposes. Introduced by Senator Allott on February 15, 1972. This proposal is similar to S. 992 except for the following major differences: (1) A new short title is provided: "Land Use Policy and Plan- fling Assistance Act of 1972". (2) 5. 632's higher funding level and greater Federal share of costs are adopted. (3) Authority for program development grants would expire after seven years (not three) and would not be limited to two annual grants only. (4) This proposal would require an appropriate state agency for administering the land use program management grants. (5) The review process would not enjoy the participation of the Secretary of HUD. Sixty days prior to disapproval of a State program, the Secretary of the Interior would have to submit the program together with his analysis and comments to the Senate and House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. (6) The Secretary of the Interior would formulate guidelines. (211) PAGENO="0220" 212 (7) The proposal does not contain the sanction of a phased re- duction in three grant-in-aid programs added by the Amendments to S. 992. S. 3177-To establish a land use policy; to authorize 1 of the Interior to make grants to encourage and assist prepare and im )lement land use~ - 1 onmental concer 0