106 



The Federal Government lias complete authority over the public 

 lands, and I think, speaking very generally, we would say that there 

 is not the same need for providing new authority for the Federal 

 GoA'ermnent in this legislation as we see is needed on the part of the 

 States. 



Senator Ste\t:ns. That is the basic drift of my questioning. This is 

 a one-way street, then, is it not ? The Federal Government is not going' 

 to comply with the State land use plans itself, but it will require 

 private entities to comply with the State land use plans in all Federal 

 activities, where Federal activities control the actions of private indi- 

 viduals. Insofar as the use by the Federal Government of its lands for 

 Federal purposes, it will not be regulated by a State land use plan ; is 

 that correct? 



INIr. Train. Yes ; that is correct. We do not subject the Federal public 

 domain to State regulation and control under this legislation. But we 

 do require that all Federal actions within the State be consistent with 

 the State land use plan. 



That is not saying quite the same thing. And I think we would 

 consider it not appropriate for the Federal Government to turn over 

 the regulation of the Federal public domain to State regulatory 

 authority. 



Senator STEVETifS. We have the example in my State of a pipeline 

 that goes through one State. Wliat about a pipeline that might go 

 through several States in the Southwest, along the Pacific Coast line, 

 which would cross through private lands and Federal lands? One of 

 these States which my colleague from Oregon represents — his State 

 decides they do not want any pipelines at all ; they have no provision 

 in their land use plan ; they specifically prohibit them. 



Now is the Federal Government going to require Federal agencies 

 and private individuals in the State of Oregon to comply with the 

 State land use plan, or not ? 



Mr. Train. The requirement in the legislation is that Federal activi- 

 ties not be inconsistent with the State plan. 



Now I presume that the State plan has to be a legal plan, a con- 

 stitutional plan. I frankly am not sufficiently familiar with the inter- 

 state law involving pipelines to know whether a State has the author- 

 ity at the present time to prohibit a pipeline coming through the 

 State. If it does, then both at the present time and under this legis- 

 lation the Federal Government would have to be, in its activities, con- 

 sist-ent with that State plan. 



I would also point out, I think, a more likely case is that States 

 through which a given pipeline moved would have certain difTerences 

 in their land use programs. The legislation does require each State 

 to exchange information and otherwise consult with its neighboring 

 States in the development of its programs ; and we do not try to tell 

 a State that "your plan must conform to what your neighbor does." 

 We think that would be an interference with the State prerogatives. 

 But we do say "you should at least work closely with them in the 

 development of your plan." Hopefully thereby minimizing radical 

 differences. 



Senator Stevens. You have indicated that the administration favors 

 S. 992 as a first step toward total land policy development. If you 



