176 



Xo^v. the significance of this does depend verv substantially on what 

 assurance there may be as to the initial part being tied in with the 

 whole, when the whole is established. 



I think that if there is some possibility of working out an accommo- 

 dation or at least in my own analysis of what would be desirable in the 

 event that this legislation pending before your committee were to be 

 enacted, whether or not the administration approves of it, it is most 

 important that a full reflection be given to the desirability of tying this 

 in with the general, overall land-use control. 



Mr. Lexxox. Well. INIr. Administrator, hearings have been held on 

 the bill that was introduced last year which followed the recommenda- 

 tions of the President concerning a number of bills that are here today. 



Now, they are still in the committee. But that same committee is 

 looking at the legislation that is pending, or that has been introduced 

 in the Senate, comparable to what has been introduced this year, like 

 H.R. 4332, but there have been no hearings on that, I am advised, but 

 the subcommittee that is considering like legislation that is now pend- 

 ing before this committee has gone into that, and I understand are 

 trying to incorporate a part of the proposals comparable to H.R. 4332, 

 the one that you referred to as pending over here now before the 

 Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. 



Do you ha,ve any information on that? 



Mr. QuARLES. I do not, sir. 



Mr. Lexxox^. We are advised that that is being done now. 



Counsel, do you have any questions, and then I will come back to 

 you, ]Mr. de la Garza. 



]Mr. DE LA Garza. No ; I have no questions. Thank you. 



Mr. Hettv^ard. Mr. Quarles, I wanted to clarify a couple of issues 

 here. This committee, of course, does not have any jurisdiction over 

 H.R. 4332, but it looks like we are compelled to discuss it in connection 

 with our own bills. 



I wonder whether it is fair to say that the administration approach, 

 so far as this legislation is concerned, has generally been to protect the 

 environment. 



Is it not true that S. 3183, and the comparable House bill, were 

 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act? 



Mr. Quarles. Yes. 



Mr. Heyw\\rd. And were aimed at environmental protection? 



]Mr. Quarles. Yes. 



Mr. Hetward. And is it not also true that H.R. 4332, as it considers 

 the coastal zone part of land use, is approaching it from the critical 

 environmental viewpoint ? 



Mr. Quarles. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Hetward. If that is correct, then my comment would be gen- 

 erally that I do not think that the land-use proposal of the administra- 

 tion is as all-encompassing as has been generally stated here. 



There are gaps, in my opinion, in the administration approach so far 

 as the waters are concerned ; not only you, but the other departmental 

 witnesses who have appeared before this subcommittee have contin- 

 ually spoken of "land use." I find in all of the statements a singular, 

 perhaps intentional, deletion or omission of the term "water use." 



This committee thinks that water use is a very important part of 

 this total problem, and that, therefore, any bill addressed to the coastal 



