100 



as perhaps Long Island, as you have mentioned, and this is one rea- 

 son why we have left very great latitude to State administrative dis- 

 cretion rather than trying to solve all these questions by some kind 

 of arbitrary statutory definition ; and we do believe that this is the best 

 approach. 



Senator Hollinqs. Earlier drafts of the national land use policy 

 bill provided sanctions through the land and water conservation 

 funds, the Federal aid to highway funds and Federal airport funds 

 for State noncompliance with the legislation. They are removed now, 

 I believe, under the present proposal. Wliy were they removed, and 

 what sanctions do you now recommend, if any ? 



Mr. Train. The initial thinking in developing this legislation was 

 to include a series of, shall we say, disincentives to help encourage 

 States to move into this program. It turned out that the available 

 disincentives which we could identify had all, or substantially all, 

 become part of the revenue-sharing proposal. And as you know, one 

 of the hallmarks of revenue sharing is freedom of decision on the 

 part of State and local governments as to how funds shall be used 

 rather than earmarking or attaching conditions to the expenditure of 

 those funds. And essentially, to make the payment of such funds con- 

 ditional upon the adoption of State land use policies and programs 

 would, it seemed to the administration, be inconsistent with the whole 

 concept of revenue sharing. So that under these circumstances we 

 really go the route of incentive rather than a combination of incentives 

 and disincentives. 



The primary incentive here in terms of Federal action is the grant 

 program. 



A second incentive provided by the legislation is the requirement 

 that once States have adopted and approved a statewide land use 

 program, all Federal programs and activities in the State must con- 

 form to that program. And I think that could prove in practice a 

 very substantial incentive to the States. 



I believe that States have very frequently criticized Federal agen- 

 cies for undertaking acts and programs which in fact were incon- 

 sistent with the things that the States were trying to do. 



There is also another proposal in the legislation which I think bears 

 comment. In cases where a State does not have an approved statewide 

 land use program as called for by the bill, if the Federal agency 

 proposes some Federal action in that State which could have a major 

 environmental impact, the Federal agency must have a hearing within 

 the State on that particular project some 180 days in advance of a 

 decision being made to go ahead. The purpose of such a hearing, of 

 course, would be to elicit public comment and discussion of the effect 

 on environment and land use generally of the proposal. 



I do not think I would describe that as either an incentive or dis- 

 incentive ; but I think it could have a very substantial effect in prac- 

 tice ; and that has not received much attention publicly. I think as a 

 part of this legislation it has potentially considerable importance. 



Senator Hollings. What about the powerplant siting bill ? The ad- 

 ministration has a bill, S. 1684. Should S. 992, the land use bill, and 

 S. 1684, the powerplant siting bill, be considered together so as not 

 to proliferate agencies — the very same rationale behind putting the 



