651 



statement, in a redundant way, only in those areas where the making 

 of a grant or of a loan under this Act in and of itself would be con- 

 sidered a Federal action under NEPA. That is the only string we 

 were trying to untie. 



We were not trying to exempt an area from NEPA, we were not try- 

 ing to take away from the power of the EPA, or the Council of En- 

 vironmental Quality. 



We were trying to sa}^, in the instances which, but for a grant or 

 loan provided for under this bill there would be no requirement of 

 NEPA for environmental impact statements for particular projects, 

 then there would be none required as a result of such a grant or loan. 



That was a very, very little thing in trying to eliminate delay for 

 most municipalities, for State actions, which if they involved any other 

 Federal action would require an environmental impact statement. 



I ask my good friend : Is it not possible we could recognize that we 

 do not want to bring to Washington those actions of a municipality 

 or State which but for the funding provisions would not he here, and 

 again understanding that the whole concept of the coastal zone man- 

 agement plan would, in fact, be subject to the environmental impact 

 statement procedure in the beginning? 



Mr. Jackson". IVIay I say that my understanding, of course, of the 

 law is that it has to be determined to be a maior Federal action. 



We are not talking about every small sewer project, and that sort of 

 thing. But, for example, let me just point out to the Senator, an en- 

 viiY)nmental impact statement is required for the overall 



Mr. Stevens. Right. 



Mr. Jackson. I agree with that, that is in there. We all agree on 

 that. 



The question arises in that connection, what can be done under this 

 $250 million fund ? For example, they could get money for a highway 

 and an impact statement would be required under the existing Fed- 

 eral-aid highway law, but under S. 586 and its NEPA exemption, they 

 would not have to submit an impact statement if it were funded under 

 section 308. 



Mr. Stevens. I beg the Senator's pardon. That is what I am afraid 

 it is interpreted to he, that is not what we meant. 



We meant the making of the loan or grant in and of itself would 

 not require an NEPA statement. A road under the Highway Act would 

 require it, any other local action ■ 



Mr. Jackson. But if we apply for a grant or loan under S. 586, an 

 impact statement for the highway would not be required because we 

 are acting under the section 319(b) exemption and not under the 

 Highway Act and they would have an exemption. 



I am sympathetic witli the Senator. I would just liope he would ac- 

 cept this amendment and let us see later if we cannot work something 

 out. T worked with the Senator from Alaska continuouslv. T just do 

 not want to bring about a situation, very candidly, in which we can 

 find ouT'solves in deep trouble. 



This is an im])ortant measure and I would bo glad to sit down with 

 the Senator and take a look later at a reasonable way of avoiding im- 

 pact statement renuirements which could he onerous and unnecessary. 



Mr. Prosideut, T am not happy with all of the procedures 



