of each facility and the composite social, environmental and
economic effect of the plan, each state will need more people
than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The 9000
people in EPA have been hard pressed trying to keep up with
current applications and would be hopelessly undermanned,
indeed, to provide the same degree of analysis for all
actions in an intermediate and long range future planning.
Using the existing Federal agencies as a bench mark for the
task required in Title III, one would estimate the combined
staffing requirement for federal and state agencies of more
than a half a million people costing the taxpayers, in
aggregate, between 10 and 25 billion dollars per year. This,
of course, would presume that there are a half million
people trained and available for work in the state governments
in these complex areas. Conceptually this requirement for
half a million people in state governments could reduce the
national unemployment figures but, unfortunately, few of the
8 million unemployed today would have the training and ex-
perience to handle this complex task.

In summary I would like to review this Bill in the light and guidance

of one of the truly great laws to be enacted in the history of our

country the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This law

requires all agencies of the federal government to

among other

things

prepare an environmental impact statement on all those

major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of human

environment. This statement must include:

(i) The impact of the proposed action

(ii) Any adverse impact which cannot be avoided

(iii) Alternatives to the proposed actions

(iv) Relationship between local short term uses- and long term productivity

(v) What irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources and, by court decision, a balancing of costs and benefits.

I suggest that a NEPA review of Senate Bill 984 would indicate the following:

(i) The impact of the proposed action could include the following:

1.

It could provide, in future years, a comprehensive

land and energy plan. I question the feasibility of achieving that goal, however, due to unavailability

of the resource base required for its successful

implementation.

2. It will place in jeopardy even the remaining frail

hope of solving the energy crisis during our lifetime.

3. It will extend federal control into the province
constitutionally belonging to the states.

(ii) Any adverse impact which cannot be avoided.

It will overlay the present and cumbersome licensing pro

cess with an additional heavy burden of resource consuming
administrative procedures and actions.

(iii) Alternatives to the proposed action:

Alternative 1 Ask the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

to direct the federal government to develop

and implement a comprehensive land use plan

for government land holding. Use this pilot

program to develop the techniques and expertise for comprehensive planning.

Alternative 2 Provide grants to the states for a comprehensive training program.

Alternative 3 Provide funds for developing and demonstrating

effective techniques for "meaningful public

participation."

Alternative 4 Ask CEQ to implement as much of this as rea

sonable under authority from existing laws.

(iv) Relationship between local short term uses— and long term productivity.

Long term productivity should be increased to more than 100,000 tons of reports per year.

The short term extra use of resources to make the paper will require about a half million acres of timber per year a

timber resource equivalent to the Alleghney National Forest annually.

(v) Irreversible and irretrievable commitments.

(1) The employment, training and productive effort of a half million people for a long time into the future.

(2) Direct cost to state and federal governments of $10-25 billion per year.

(3) All the social, environmental and related economic re

resources that sustain (1) and (2).

I am sure that this Bill was sponsored in an effort to provide better government service to our society with a consideration of enhancing the heritage that we pass on to those that follow. In traveling and visit

indeed,

ing the people across the country, I have found no such mandate only very limited numbers who strongly feel that their government should take yet a stronger hand in planning their future.

In conclusion

I concur with the intentions of this Bill to provide rational planning of land and energy resources, but I urge you to incorporate the experience of state siting regulations and pilot programs on federal lands into the detail provisions of federal land use law.

I would urge Congress to explore and help develop the

mechanism for "meaningful public participation" so that both government and industry can better serve society.

I would urge you to explore all the legislative remedies at your disposal to remove the spectre of the catastrophic energy crisis which is now developing.

Our nation is faced with multiple crises

crises in energy, the

economy and the environment. I submit that none of these can be successfully solved without providing a comprehensive solution to all three. Let us seek a rational solution to these problems now so that

we will have a heritage to pass on to our children.

57-493 O 76 pt. 2 6