113 



^oal of a national land-use policy and that we do it in such a way to 

 prevent what I consider to be the very unfortunate consequences of 

 the National Environmental Policy Act ; and that is, the definition by 

 the courts of what the NEPA means. I think Congress should have 

 defined what we meant by NEPA and not left it to the courts. There 

 is an inconsistent pattern, in my opinion, developing throughout the 

 United States in terms of what the National Environmental Policy 

 Act does mean and what it covers. 



I am sure you have seen these decisions, and I have been quite dis- 

 turbed with them in terms of their inconsistency. It would seem to me 

 that your people can give us great assistance to make sure, if we do 

 take the short route, that we do it consistent with the total national 

 land-use policy. I hope you would be of that assistance. 



Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. 



Mr. Train. Let me assure the committee that our Council and staff 

 are most anxious to work closely with the members of this committee 

 and its staff in the development of the best possible legislation, and 

 we would note that we would certainly make that same offer to tlie 

 other committees involved in this subject here in the Senate; and 

 would urge — although here I am treading on what is manifestly the 

 jurisdiction of the Congress and not the executive branch — that 

 everything be done here, as I am sure is being done, to develop a uni- 

 fied, overall approach to what I think we all agree is a prime na- 

 tional need for more effective land-use control nationwide. 



Senator Hollixgs. Mr. Train, we appreciate very nmch 3^our ap- 

 pearance here this morning, you and your colleagues, and we thank 

 you very much. 



Mr. Train. Thank you veiy much, Mr. Chairman. 



[The statement follows:] 



Statement of Hon. Russell Train, Chairman, Council on Environmental 



Quality 



Chairman Hollings, Senator Stevens and Members of the Committee, I appre- 

 ciate the opportunity to testify on the relationship of the pending coastal zone 

 legislation and the national land use policy legislation submitted by the Ad- 

 ministration and now pending before the Senate Interior Committee. 



As this Committee is well aware, during the last Congress the Administration 

 proposed coastal zone management legislation, which, along with other bills 

 introduced by Senator Hollings and other members of the Senate, was the 

 subject of extensive hearings before this Committee. I had a particular interest 

 in the legislation since, when as Under Secretary of the Interior, I chaired an 

 interagency task force on coastal zone management which developed the pro- 

 posals submitted by the Administration. On February 8, 1971, the President 

 submitted to Congress his second Environmental Message, laying before Con- 

 gress a far reaching and innovative set of legislative proposals to deal with the 

 problems of controlling pollution, to deal with emergiug new problems such as 

 toxic substances and ocean dumping, and to promote better land use. Among 

 other major proposals in the latter category, the President called for a national 

 land use policy. This legislation, now pending as S. 992 before the Senate In- 

 terior and Insular Affairs Committee, recognizes the need for reform of State 

 land use law. It urges States to assume greater regulatory authority, in conjunc- 

 tion with local governments, over significant development and conservation 

 issues of more than local impact. These were the essential objectives of the 

 Administration's initial coastal zone bill, although the geographic area of con- 

 cern in that legislation was more limited and the issues for State attention 

 less explicit than that contemplated in the national land use policy proposal. 



You may find it helpful to have a brief history of the Administration's progress 



