(With respect to this, we call your attention to the ALA's analysis of the "growth unit scale" of development as being the most appropriate for providing new housing, employment, and community facilities on the fringes of our major metropolitan areas.) This Section sounds somewhat like a chapter out of a local "no-growth" ordinance, many of which have been found to discriminate against the interests of low- and moderate-income people. We suggest that the other side of the equation be entered so some balance exists. We would be pleased to work with the Committee to develop specific language if the

Chairman desires.

TITLE I-Program of Assistance to The States, Part B-State Land Resource Programs, Section 102. Land Resource Planning Process: In order to continue eligibility for grants after three years under this legislation, Section 102 requires the states to establish a comprehensive information base on state land use planning. Section 102 calls for land use inventories, projections, and identifications. Nowhere in the Section is the preparation of a comprehensive plan and program called for. We would suggest amending Section 102 to include a paragraph which requires the states to produce a plan and an implementation/management program, or at least to establish a process by which a state land use plan implementation/management process could be established within some designated time frame--say five years from the enactment of this legislation. This is not to say that the Federal Government would be setting standards, but rather it would say that each state should undertake this important work based on its view of its responsibilities under the state and federal constitutions. Otherwise, Section 102 is impressive with respect to its treatment of the land use issue.

Section 104. Study of Existing Land Resource Planning and Management Authority: This is one of the most important Sections in the bill. Our research has shown that the ground rules governing development at the local level are often incapable of securing the public interest. On a metropolitan scale, housing, employment, and transportation are cases in point. It is very important that under Section 104, the state review all public institutions which encourage, regulate, or actually undertake construction programs. The House land use bill, H.R. 3510 has a provision, Title II, Section 201 (b), which is intended to reduce the red tape and delay in the present planning and regulatory systems. We certainly support this provision and believe that Section 104 in S. 984 could be amended to achieve the same purpose.

Section 207. Study, Recommendation, and Congressional Consideration of Land Resource Policies: This Section recognizes that land resources planning is a process and that this legislation is a first major step. Section 207 calls for the states' annual reports on their progress to be reviewed by the Board (established in Section 203) for the purpose of making recommendations to the Congress on additional legislation appropriate to establish national land resource policies. This Section also includes necessary and important public notice and public hearing requirements which we strongly support.

Section 208. Biennial Report of the Secretary: Under this provision the Secretary, with the assistance of the Office of Land Resource Planning Assistance in the Department of the Interior and the Interagency Land Resource Advisory

Board, is instructed to report biennially to the President and the Congress on land resources, uses of land, and current and emerging problems of land use.

In order to avoid duplication, we would suggest that this study be a prelude to the President's Biennial National Growth and Development Report required by the 1970 Housing and Urban Development Act and be formally linked thereto. It is important that we begin to view things as a whole. A proliferation of reports on various aspects of the same problem is not particularly constructive.

TITLE III. Energy Facilities Planning. Earlier in our comments on the Definitions section we indicated our preference for including energy facilities

under "key facilities."

Section 302. Findings and Purpose unintentionally makes the argument for the inclusion of energy facilities in the "key facilities" section. The Congress hereby finds and declares that the national public interest requires that energy facilities adequate to meet the nation's current and future energy needs, reduced, as practicable, by energy conservation measures, be sited and constructed in a timely and rational fashion without undue delay, with minimum environmental damage, and with early opportunity for thorough public review; that the siting of energy facilities be integrated with state land and water resource planning and management, the other elements of the state land resource program, and any coastal zone management program...." We hope that energy facilities are not singled out for "special" treatment. We believe that all key facilities should have an approval process which protects the public interest but at the same time minimizes delay and red tape and that all key facilities are integrated into a total state planning function. In Part A-State

Energy Facility Planning Programs under Section 303 State Energy Facility
Planning Programs the subsections could apply equally well to such things

as housing, transportation, and open space and recreation.

TITLE V-Authorizations and Allocations: We basically find Title V acceptable. The authorizations seem to be sufficient to stimulate new state land use planning programs and to boost existing programs. If this turns out not to be the case, then the provisions of Section 207 under Title II would seem to pertain; that is, after the third fiscal year the program will be re-evaluated and such additional legislation as seems appropriate would be suggested, including

amendments to this Act.

In conclusion, we would like to stress our strong support for S. 984. We would also like to offer our assistance in drafting amendments based on our comments if the Chairman so desires. We stand ready to assist you and

support you in this important work. Thank you for the opportunity to present

our views.

Senator STONE. Dr. James Wright, director for the environmental systems department of Westinghouse Electric Corp. is our next witness. Dr. Wright.

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES WRIGHT, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS DEPARTMENT, WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP.

Dr. WRIGHT. Thank you, Senator. I am the director of the environmental systems department and I have spent more than 30 years in the fields of energy development and their related environmental effects. The department which I direct has the responsibility to assist industry and Government agencies in analyzing quantitatively environmental problems and developing their solutions as a result of that. We have been the trenches, so to speak, during the evolution of the environmental regulations and we are keenly sensitive to the social and resource implications of new regulations as well as the ecological and technological elements. Thank you for this opportunity of sharing these experiences with you today, on Senate bill 984, the Land Resource Planning Asistance Act.

The stated purpose and intent of the Land Resource Assistance Act are noble and worthy of our attention in that they show intent to enrichen the heritage for those who will follow us. The specific content of the bill, however, does not appear to contain the legal direction for accomplishing these lofty objectives but, rather, seriously endangers the future energy supply which is already overly encumbered with multiple steps and multiple agencies' actions.

Senator STONE. You heard the Florida Power and Light spokesman-does his statement on the hardware permitting and site selection make sense to you?

Dr. WRIGHT. It is very important-it certainly should be free and encouraged to deal with site banks, for example. But, the repetition in the hardware licensing is really pointless.

Senator STONE. Since they do not have the expertise at the State or local level to handle radiation questions such as this?

Dr. WRIGHT. Or even repetition by the regulatory commission to have repeated hearings on the same design is also a worthless task. Senator STONE. Do these bills take care of that problem? Dr. WRIGHT. No, they do not.

Senator STONE. What would be the effect, in your mind, of S. 619's preemption provisions by the Federal Government?

Dr. WRIGHT. I would have mixed reactions to it. On the one hand, it would appear to be a way to obtain a more expeditious solution to the energy siting problems that face us, but in practice, I think that the exact opposite would occur. I think Federal further intervention in States' affairs will simply mean judicial battles for very long time to come.

I believe the reaction-if the law went through-the reaction would be quite great and the in-practice process of moving ahead with this is going to be, I think, difficult.