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