49 



that comes to mind. These are very hardsiting problems to be left 

 simply to local initiatives and decision. And I would simply say that 

 I think that there may well be specific problem areas of this sort which 

 do require more national attention than they are getting. 



Mr. McEwEN. Very simply, Mr. Train, let's say that States A and B 

 are adjacent to each other and each have the same number of miles of 

 coastline area and one State should decide that 90 percent of it should 

 be protected, its wetlands and so forth, not affected by man's develop- 

 ment, wliile they decide to set 90 percent aside, and the adjacent State 

 finds that only 10 percent in their opinion is needed. 



Well, obviously the economic development and growth and job op- 

 portunities will be in the area having the greatest land available and 

 unrestricted. And that is why I feel that you have to have under this 

 some uniform standards, as I believe have been pretty well worked out 

 in this field of water pollution, where the States have set standards but 

 there have been standards set and they have been reviewed in the light 

 of what were the conditions on that particular waterway. 



I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Howard. Thank 3^ou, Mr. Snyder, 



Mr. Snyder. Just to see if I am clear here, the requirements of the 

 State are set out on pages 6, 7, and 8. 



Am I correct in my understaiiding that the authority of the Fed- 

 eral Government to approve a feasible land and water use plan would 

 be absolute ? 



Mr. Traiist. Under this, with respect to plans submitted under this 

 bill ; yes. 



Mr. Snyder. Or else they didn't get the money ? 



Mr. Train. That is correct; subject always to the administrative 

 protection, and a Secretary cannot arbitrarily act without a basis. 



Mr. Snyder. This would, of course, involve litigation, and it prob- 

 ably would not be worth the effort. 



Flipping on over to page 8, they have to establish procedures for 

 accurate review, State and local private projects for consistency with 

 management plans. 



What is your idea of what that means ? 



Mr. Train. Well, this goes back to the importance that has been 

 stressed here of not only having plans, but having plans that are mean- 

 ingful and result in action. And it is our feelingthat if a State devel- 

 ops management plans which we approve, but then State projects and 

 local projects within a State proceed in sublime ignorance of that 

 State plan, that the program isn't working the way we want it and 



Mr. Snyder. Then what you are saying now is that you have can- 

 cellation rights ? 



Mr. Train. Of course, this is the provision we are talking about here 

 with respect to the provision of the State plan in the first instance — 

 the approval of the State plan in the first instance — and if we were 

 satisfied that the State had an adequate process for this kind of leview, 

 then there would be no objection to it. 



Now, if it does not have, in our view, an adequate procedure, the 

 plan presumably would not be approved. 



It does not spell out what the procedure should be. Here again it 

 leaves a great deal of leeway to the State. 



