179 



All I am suggesting is that there are tools now, perhaps, ^y]lich 

 may be refined, to protect tlie environment, and what tliis committee 

 is looking to is a rational bill which will assist the States in making 

 legitimate choices between competing uses for water resources. 



That is the thrust of these coastal zone bills, and we are trying to 

 provide suincient fmids so that the States can do it. 

 ]SXr Ott VRLES. Yes sir. 



Mr*. Hey^vard. And I think that these bills, particularly H.E. 9229, 

 would accomplish that. 

 Mr. Lennox. Mr. Steele. 



Mr. Steele. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. 

 Mr. Lennon. I am sure you will remember, if you were in TVashing- 

 ton and were involved in the problems such as we are trying to face m 

 tliis committee, in this direction, that this committee convened in 

 Washington a symj)osium or a forum. 



Having been involved for months in the hearings on the Stratton 

 Commission report, we convened in Wasliington a symposium or a 

 forum, however you may want to describe it, of the 32 coastal zone 

 States Governors, or the definitive representatives of the Governors of 

 the 32 coastal and Great Lakes States, to try to reach some area of 

 agreement and to get the input of those States with respect to how 

 the recomnnendations of the Stratton Commission in regard to coastal 

 matters could be done. 



It took the States some time, but, as a result of that meeting here 

 in Washington, they formed this organization, and, as a result of 

 their interest, I am sure that the President was motivated to propose 

 what you say are the basic purposes of the bills that we are discussing 

 here today, which are similar to the bill S. 3183, which was introduced 

 in the Senate. 



NoAv, I can understand the disappointment and the frustration of 

 these 32 States, at the National Governors Conference and the Na- 

 tional Legislative Council having been encouraged to believe that the 

 administration was for this approach by sending to Congress a bill, 

 and less than 12 months later, come back and say, "No, you had better 

 not do that now. You had better wait until we can provide legislation 

 that would include the broader context of land control statewide." 



I do not see how it is not in a sense disappointment and frustration, 

 and I think it is our duty to advise the National Governors Confer- 

 ence by letter, Mr. Counsel, and the National Legislative Council 

 representing the 50 general assemblies of the United States that, in 

 spite of the fact that they were encouraged to believe that the admin- 

 istration supported what it now says, through you, its representative, 

 the basic purposes of what the administration offered, that the admin- 

 istration is now saying, "No, we have to wait until that point in time, 

 in history, when we can work out a program that will involve the 

 broader context of land-use controls statewide." 



Now, I am about as nonpartisan as anybody can be, or knows how 

 to be, but I just cannot believe that that is a smart thing. We are 

 being led down the primrose path, Mr. Administrator, that is, these 

 States are. 



I think it is our duty to convey to them just what the administra- 

 tion position is. 



Then if the administration wants to take another look at this thing 

 and see if it cannot agree with us, that we ought to move forward in 



