156 



which, in the opinion of the coastal State, is inconsistent with the 

 mana^-ement pLan of such coastal State unless the Secretary, after 

 receivings; detailed comments from both the Federal agency and the 

 coastal State, finds that such project is consistent with the objectives 

 of this title, or is informed by the Secretary of Defense and finds that 

 the project is necessary in the interest of national security. 



]My question is, how do you foresee the role of the States here ? 



Do you foresee the buildins: of an oil refinery being designated by 

 the Secretary as somehow in the national interest and therefore being 

 able to override a State's decision not to have a refinery on a specific 

 area ? 



Secretary Loesch. Mr, du Pont, I think, of course, that it is incum- 

 bent upon the Federal Government to retain final responsibility for 

 management of Federal programs, but I certainly would not conceive 

 that, except in most unusual circumstances, that any Secretary would 

 want to override a State's considered judgment. 



Mr. DU Pont. Well, if that is true, and maybe the chairman would 

 care to comment on this, I am a little confused as to what these sec- 

 tions really mean, but I can see the national defense exception. 



Secretary Loesch. Yes ; of course. I tliink we can all see that. 



Mr. DU Pont. But short of that, I am just not sure I understand 

 what we are doing here. 



You would see it that if the State decided to set aside an area of 

 land and said v»'e are not going to allow any construction here because 

 w^e want to preserve the land for noneconomic development, you would 

 see no situation short of a national defense interest that would permit 

 the Federal Government to override that ? 



Secretary Loesch. I do not think so, Mr. du Pont, particularly 

 with the adveent of the Environmental Protection Act and the Presi- 

 dent's Coimcil on the Environment. 



I would be greatly surprised if any such project by a State were 

 even argued about by the Federal Government. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



!^Ir. Lennon. I will say to the gentleman from Delaware he is at 

 liberty at any time to consult with counsel of this subcommittee and 

 the other counsel of the committee in order to get a legal opinion on 

 any matter before the subcommittee. 



The gentleman from North Carolina. 



Mr. Jones. No questions. 



]Mr. Lennon. jMr. Secretary, we recognize that last year the adminis- 

 tration, following the recommendations of the Stratton Commission, 

 which I believe made a more definitive study of this problem than any 

 other Commission that has ever been involved in tliis matter, came 

 up with its reconunendations concerning the establishment of coastal 

 zone management. 



Now, they have enlarged that to include the land areas, but there 

 is a complete recognition on the part of these 32 coastal States, in- 

 cluding the Great Lakes States, through their coastal States and 

 organization, that at a point in time we were looking way down the 

 road for a policy such as enunciated by the President this year. 



It was their consensus, and they so stated before this subcommittee, 

 that we ought to move now, at least in this direction that we are con- 

 sidering: under the bill that is now before this subcommittee. 



