, 134 



legislation directly so as to avoid, as has been stated by the Assist- 

 ant Secretary, to avoid the need for an Environmental Impact 

 Statement. 



I question whether or not Assistant Secretary Horn's statement 

 that the, I think he called it the Environmental Acquisition 

 Report, whether that is the functional equivalent of an Environ- 

 mental Impact Statement. I submit that it is not, and the copy of it 

 that we have seen is grossly inadequate as an Environmental 

 Impact Statement. Besides that, it was not prepared by the Depart- 

 ment of Interior, as he referred to it, as our report. It was prepared 

 by Resource Concepts, in Carson City, for Aerojet and paid for, pre- 

 sumably, by them. At least that is what it says on its first page. 



Now, we certainly share the Nevada delegation's interest in eco- 

 nomic development and diversification in Nevada. However, I don't 

 believe there is any objective analysis available to warrant or to 

 show that the possible economic advantages may outweigh the real 

 potential, environmental problems. There is really no reason for 

 Congress to jump ahead in this manner without the environmental 

 review that is needed. 



There is another point here, too. 



Aerojet is renowned for its dismal environmental record in Cali- 

 fornia. It is charged with one of the Superfund toxic waste disas- 

 ters in the Springfield Acid Pits and also in their rocket fuel plant 

 in Rancho Cordova. So it is not surprising that they want to come 

 to Nevada, where we don't have the kind of legislation that Califor- 

 nia has passed in their Proposition 65, and our laws are certainly 

 less stringent than California. 



Could I have a couple of more moments. Senator? 



Senator Hecht. You got 'em. 



Mr. HoRNBECK. Thank you. 



The particular problems that we would point out with this specif- 

 ic legislation that we would suggest for correction are that the leg- 

 islation should, as other legislation has, actually require an Envi- 

 ronmental Impact Statement to be done by the Federal Govern- 

 ment or another independent agency, rather than the proponent of 

 this particular land exchange, namely Aerojet. 



Secondly, that EIS should discuss alternative sites and also dis- 

 cuss the proposition or the alternative of no land exchange; that is, 

 purchasing any necessary lands in Florida with the funds available 

 through the Land and Water Conservation Fund and then arrang- 

 ing, if it is necessary, for Aerojet to locate in Nevada, leasing that 

 land to them, leasing the Federal land to them, with the provision 

 that, when they cease their operations at some future date, that 

 land would remain as public lands and revert. That would have the 

 advantages to us of having a way of in perpetuity preserving this 

 area for the tortoises and also for hunting, fishing, and other public 

 use, particularly minerals development, since, as proposed here, 

 this would deed the mineral rights to Aerojet as well. 



I see no reason why Aerojet needs mineral rights, other than 

 their future plans to develop this land or sell it. 



I understand, I have been told, that Aerojet would agree to a re- 

 versionary clause in the event that they did not use the land for 

 this purpose. However, I think if there were such a reversionary 

 clause, it should be an indefinite one, that at any time in the 



