101 



coastal zone into the overall land use policy ? Why should the power- 

 plant siting bill not be included in this land use bill ? 



Mr. Train. I think it is our feeling that it is proper to treat power- 

 plants, the powerplant siting proposal, as separate legislation. It is 

 not quite the same kind of thing as the coastal zone. There are a wide 

 variety of specific kinds of projects, such as airports or highways or 

 powerplants or housing which, it seems to us, will continue to be ap- 

 propriately the subject of specific regulatory authority. 



The coastal zone is essentially part of the larger problem of general 

 land use. It is a geographically distinct area, although, as our discus- 

 sion a few moments ago brought out, the distinction becomes a little bit 

 vague as to where the coastal zone lets off and the inland area begins. 



Senator Hollings. Thank you very much. 



Senator Spong ? 



Senator Spong. Mr. Train, you may have touched on this. What 

 would be the situation if Congi-ess enacted S. 992 or a comparable 

 bill, and a State did not enact a statute to protect wetlands ? 



Mr. Train. I think that the legislation made quite clear, and I 

 would think that the representative of the Department of the In- 

 terior would certainly bear me out, that a State program mider those 

 circumstances would not be approved. 



Senator Spong. So you would say that a condition precedent for 

 an approved State program would include a wetlands statute ? 



Mr. Train. Absolutely. 



Senator Spong. Under section 104, would it be possible for a State 

 agency other than a State highway or transportation agency to have 

 jurisdiction over the location of highways ? 



Mr. Train. This is the section relating to air and water and other 

 environmental 



Senator Spong. It begins on page 7 of the bill. 



Mr. Train. It is not intended to give the agency responsible for 

 the administration of the land use program any general authority 

 with the siting location of highways. 



Senator Spong. It is not intended ? 



Mr. Train. That is right. 



Senator Spong. We may have to look at that. 



Mr. Train. I think, as you have indicated, Senator, it might be 

 valuable to take a look at this in terms of the technical language of 

 the legislation to assure that result. 



There certainly ought to be some correspondence and cooperation 

 as between the agencies at the State level and other legislation, 

 namely, the Air Quality Act of 1970 gives the Environmental Pro- 

 tection Agency certain authority in this respect. 



These should be dovetailed. 



Senator Spong. In Virginia, as you knoiw, there has been phenom- 

 enal development along the Shirley Highway corridor. We now 

 have commuter traffic into Washington from Prince William County 

 and even farther south. In what ways do you envision that this bill, 

 if enacted, would serve to solve or reduce the problems of the Wash- 

 ington suburbs? 



Mr. Train. Assuming we are not talking about what the bill de- 

 fines as a critical environmental area, a wetland or a shoreline or 

 something of that sort 



