164 



Secretary Loesch. No. 



Mr. Hey\vaiid. Is there any language yoii could furnish the commit- 

 tee which would provide for a later transition into a national land use 

 policy overview if this legislation goes forward? 



N'ow, I understand you do not want this legislation to go forward. 

 You would rather wait for the land use bill. I am asking you whether, 

 if, despite that, a coastal zone bill goes forward, would it be possible 

 for you to furnish legislative language, even reluctantly, that would 

 anticipate later enactment of land use legislation so they could be 

 merged ? 



Secretary Loesch. It would be very difficult for us to do this unless 

 we knew the final form of the coastal zone legislation, of course. 



We could take the bill as it is and develop language. I am certain, 

 which would phase it into the total land use planning concept if and 

 when that passes. Unless we were pretty certain that the bill would 

 go through just as it is written which, as you know, is sort of always 

 problematical; you can see our problem. We might come up with 

 something inappropriate. 



Mr. Heyward. Am I correct in saying that the approach of the 

 administration in the past as to the coastal zone itself, its critical 

 environmental quality, is the thrust of it? 



Secretary Loesch. That is right. 



Mr. Heyward. It really does not address itself to rational decisions 

 on competing uses. It is just silent on that subject. 



Secretary Loesch. No ; I do not think that is so. The land planning 

 bill identifies areas of critical environmental concern, of which coastal 

 zones and estuarine areas is one category. 



Mr. Hey^vard. That is correct, but it is not true that when the 

 administration supported the coastal zone concept last year that it 

 supported it in the context of amending the Federal Water Pollution 

 Control Act? 



Secretary Loesch. That is correct. 



Mr. Hey^vard. Addressed to protection rather than really to a 

 management of competing uses and including within that manage- 

 ment scheme the protection system. 



Secretary Loesch. Yes ; I think that is correct. 



Of course, so far as we are concerned, we are pretty much com- 

 mitted in the Department on land planning — and here I do make a 

 distinction between land and water planning — to the concept of man- 

 agement via a multiple use and sustained yield in which we deal every 

 day with competing uses, competing requirements for the same specific 

 area of ground. I think this can be equated quit« appropriately to 

 water planning, but I agree with you that the thrust of the previous 

 administration bill and its current inclusion in the land use bill is 

 pretty much environmental-ecological concern, 



Mr. Heyward. In that connection, is it not true — and this refers to 

 the question asked previously by Mr. du Pont who has left — in con- 

 nection with the Federal overview, section 307 of PI.K. 9229 provides 

 for a review at the national level with consultation with all of the 

 departmental agencies that might be involved before the Secretary 

 approves the State plan ? 



Does not this provision adequately insure the Federal input of all 

 departments which are concerned with the plan that is coming up. 



