92 



It should foster continued econwnic growth of all States and 

 401 (gr> (2) ; regions, but at the same time influence population distribution 



401(g) (3) in a manner to make scenic, environmental and cultural ameni- 



ties available. 



It should contribute to revitalization of rural communities, 

 401(g) (4) and encourage new communities. 



It should prompt States to take a larger view by assuming 

 land use planning responsibility for activities of regional, inter- 

 401(g)(5) state and national concern within their boundaries. 



It should facilitate coordination of federal programs for more 

 401(g)(6) desirable patterns of environmental, agricultural, recreational 

 and industrial land-use planning. 



It should "systematize methods" for land use and environmen- 

 401(g) (7) tal information exchange. 



Importantly, such a policy is to serve as a guide in making 

 specific decisions at the national level which affect the pattern 

 401 (f ) for environmental, recreational and industrial growth and devel- 



opment on the federal lands. 

 The Policy should provide a framework for development of 

 401 (f ) Interstate, State and local land-use policy. 



When this bill was introduced, its author said that a national land use policy 

 is the next logical step to follow the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

 He recognized that it was a starting point for review and analysis, a working 

 draft for comment by State, local, and federal oflBcials and planners, and repre- 

 sentatives of industrial and public interest groups. 



It would be a great shame if it did not get the constructive response which has 

 been asked for, one consistent with the importance of the subject matter, and the 

 thought and imagination which obviously has gone into its drafting. Every land 

 managing agency of the federal government, from the Bureau of Land Manage- 

 ment and all its sister bureaus of the Interior Department to the Forest Service 

 and the Corps of Engineers and the Federal Power Commission, the military 

 services, and the General Services Administration, ought to present comments in 

 terms of their particular program interests. So should the States and their land 

 or resource departments, and the interstate agencies. I would go so far as to 

 suggest that the Committee try to expose the differences of opinion among the 

 experienced professionals, so that the debate can be marked more by its intel- 

 lectual content, than by bureaucratic jealousies. 



I emphasize the importance of the kind of consideration this proposal should 

 get, because I think public understanding will be enhanced by the process. The 

 importance of public understanding transcends any statewide plan, or national 

 land-use policy. To take an example from the utility industry to illustrate my 

 meaning, last Sunday's Washington Post had an article by Hans Landsberg who 

 pointed out that ninety per cent of the growth in power generation in the last 30 

 years has been caused by higher per capital consumption. In other words, if we 

 thought that the right amount of electricity was that which we generated in 1940, 

 only 20 million people could be served at today's consumption rates. 



The years since 1940 seem short to some of us. It is when we extrapolate the 

 growth of the last 30 years for the next thirty that we get frightened about the 

 sufficiency of our land and water resources — and that is what this bill is about. 



The American people are going to make the compromises necessary for survival 

 only as they understand the problem — and there is vast evidence that they don't 

 now understand it. 



Planning in a free society requires planners who are responsive to the citizens 

 of that society. Planners do not achieve political immunity simply by being vested 

 with the mantle of planner. And the process of planning, as the bill recognizes, 

 must take place within the political system and be responsive to it. Coming to 

 understand what our problems are, as a common effort, is the only thing that will 

 make a Plan worth very much. 



I confess misgivings about many features of the bill. For example, I do not 

 believe that the experience of the Water Resources Council has been positive 

 enough to prove that an augmented Council can provide the kind of leadership a 

 program of this magnitude requires. Much will depend upon the Council's profes- 

 sional staff, and an organization of designees of members undoubtedly will try to 

 make it work. But in matters as fimdamental as land-use planning, the institu- 

 tional interests of the various departments are likely to preclude the possibility 

 of the Council, as such, resolving policy conflicts. 



