93 



In this connection, it may be proper to note that the Federal Power Commission 

 was, for its first ten years a cabinet-level Commission, made up by the Secretaries 

 of War, Interior, and Agriculture. As these matters go, the cabinet-level FPC was 

 moderately successful, but its successes were traceable more to the personality of 

 an old Forest Service man who took over as the first Chief Engineer of the Com- 

 mission than to the hoped-for cooi-dination arising from putting the warring 

 department heads on the same Commission. That form of organization was aban- 

 doned in 1930. 



Speaking to the overall concept of the bill, I commend to the Committee's atten- 

 tion a very recent book by an old colleague of mine, and friend or acquaintance of 

 most of the members of this Committee, James L. Sundquist. Jim was once admin- 

 istrative assistant to Senator Clark, and served the Kennedy and Johnson Admin- 

 istrations in the Agriculture Department as Deputy Under Secretary. Now at 

 Brookings, he has written a fine book called Making Federalism Work, a Study of 

 Program Coordination at the Community Level. (The Brookings Institution, 

 1969). 



In a section headed "A Govermnent Policy for Federalism : A Policy of Defer- 

 ence" Mr. Sundquist points out some of the pitfalls which have been encouraged 

 iu other efforts at intergovernmental coordination, and particularly in situations 

 where, as here, a considerable reliance is placed on actions at the State level, is 

 another section he puts his finger on what may be a key problem here. Speaking 

 out that the structures created for it have tended to rely upon systems of mutual 

 adjustment rather than of central direction — upon what could be attained 

 through negotiation among equals rather than through the exercise of hierarchy 

 authority. The Council mechanism is subject to this criticism. 



It is fully understandable that there are inconsistencies and gaps within the 

 bill itself, and I hope that my identification of some of them will be regarded as 

 constructive. At a pi-etty basic level, the bill goes far to negate its own funda- 

 mental reliance on the constitutional prerogatives of States in the section which 

 finds that the manner in which State responsibility for land use planning and 

 management impinges upon federal managerial responsibilities for the public 

 domain, and the national parks and recreation areas. 

 Other criticisms are less basic : 



Greater participation by State governments in land use decisions of the federal 

 government does not necessarily insure that decisions will accord with the high- 

 est and best standards of land use management. Sometimes the opposite is true. 

 The bill might well point out who in the federal government ought to under- 

 take the development of a national land use policy. The Congress is a part of the 

 federal government, but given the elaborate prescription in this bill of what the 

 policy .should contain. It is apparent that what is contemplated is something which 

 meets the specified guidelines at the executive level. 



Multiple-use statutes are the prototype for at least some of the principles 

 enunciated in the bill. From personal experience, I can testify that the existence 

 of such statutes seldom helps in the resolution of particular land use controversies. 

 Also as noted earlier, the bill does not clearly delineate the areas where inter- 

 state agencies may supplant States in the devising of plans, or in their imple- 

 mentation. 



I believe that the system of sanctions .specified in the bill, and particularly the 

 cutting back of other grants on a selective basis is unduly harsh, and unless 

 modified would effectively bar most States participating. 



The provisions that the State agency which manages the plan should have the 

 authority to acquire interests in real property does not specify what authority, if 

 any, that agency must also secure to pay for any interests acquired. Federal 

 constitutional requirements require compensation, and absence of monies to 

 carry out such a program might leave it utterly ineffectual. 



The State judicial review procedures ought not be a subject of the federal 

 legislation. 



It would be possible for me to devote considerable time to the question of how 

 regulatory agencies, at both the federal and the State level, are affected by the bill 

 as drafted, and how I think this particular governmental mechanism ought to be 

 meshed. Suffice it to sy at this point that the very independence of these agen- 

 cies, coupled with their vital involvement in land use planning decisions with 

 wide impact, makes a careful review of this whole question of vital importance. 

 Licensing of hydroelectric and pumped storage projects, siting of plants, regula- 

 tion of nuclear generating stations, and location of electric and gas utility lines 

 are activities not easily folded into the system contemplated by this measure. 



