85 



trol Act of 1966, as amended particularly by the Water Qualify Improvement Act 

 of 1970, has several different provisions for ensuring action if the State is recalci- 

 trant in setting water quality standards or enforcing tliem. Inasmuch as the 

 Administration's biU is an amendment to tlie Federal Water Pollution Control 

 Act. and in light of the urgency of the coastal zone problems, would it not be 

 desirable for the Senate to include in the Administration bill a provision making 

 coastal State participation in coastal zone planning mandatory? 



Answer. Answered on p. 1123. 



Question. As presently drafted, the three coastal zone management bills pro- 

 vide only for withdrawal of grant support if a State fails to develop a com- 

 prehensive coastal and estuarine management plan and program. Two additional 

 steps have been recommended by witnesses before us: (1) Curtail State entitle- 

 ment to funds under other Federal assistance programs if the State fails to act 

 within a given period; or (2) if the State fails to act within three years, the 

 Federal government should step in and establish land-use development standards 

 and issue development permits. 



Would you please comment on the two recommendations? 



Do you have any specific recommendations for strengthening the three bills as 

 respects the State's failure to act? 



Answer. Part of the philosophy of our bill is that we should rely on the State's 

 good faih in cooperating with us in developing management plans and programs 

 for the coastal zone. For the time being we see no reason to deviate from tliis 

 assumption. On the other hand, should our expectations not be fulfilled, then wo 

 s-hould seek additional legislation which would include provisions such as you 

 liave suggested. 



Que^iion. Testimony has been received in these hearings on incentives that 

 might be applied. These include: (1) Federal matching grants for acquisition (if 

 coastal and estuarine lands and adjacent areas, not only for scientific research 

 as provided in the Tydings bills, but also for multiple purpose uses: (2) Grant 

 bonuses for States imposing interim controls suflScient to regulate develop- 

 ment, or whicli already have regulatory authority at the State level, pending 

 preparation and adoption of the State's comprehensive management plan: and 

 (3) an adjustable maximum grant percentage, for instance, up to 80% Federal 

 contribution when a combination of Federal funds from other Federal programs 

 are used in conjunction with funds available under the coastal zone act. 



Would you please comment en these proposals? 



Do you have any specific recommendations regarding incentives that might lie 

 used in the bills pending before us? 



Answer. Answer same as for previous question. 



Qucf^tion. What is the Administration's position on the enactment of a Na- 

 tional Ivand Use Policy Act. as proposed by Senator Jackson? 



Answer. The Administration's position with respect to a National Land Use 

 Policy is still evolving. The Administration's position, as stated to date, regard- 

 ing Senator Jackson's bill is reflected in the testimony of Russell Train, Chair- 

 man of the Council on Environmental Quality, and John A. Carver, Jr., Federal 

 Power Commission. Copies of both statements are attached. 



(The statements referred to in the previous finswer follow:) 

 Statement of Chairman Train 



Mr. Chairman. Senator Allott, it is a privilege to appear again before this 

 distinguished committee. You will recall I was last here before you in February, 

 a little over two months ago, with Mr. Cahn and Dr. MacDonald at our con- 

 firmation hearing. Since then the Council on p]nvironmental Quality has launched 

 on the plentiful agenda you set before us in the National Environmental Policy 

 Act. Last week I was out talking to the students at environmental teach-ins that 

 literally ranged from coast to coast and I think the National Environmental 

 Policy Act has given hope that our mechanisms of government can respond to 

 the challenge of the problems of the environment. 



In my last appearance before you I said that the development of effective land 

 use policies would be part of the long and hard road to environmental quality. 

 We in the Council believe that a national land use iiolicy underlies the concept 

 of conscious protection and enhancement of the environment set out in the Na- 

 tional Environmental Policy Act. 



Our land is a finite resource and the decisions we make about its u.se today 

 persist in their effect. In many ways the misuse of our land does more to degrade 

 the quality of our environment than the pollution of air and water. I believe 



