Senator Henry M Jackson and National Land Use Legislation

Federal
Published Article
Development Standards, Natural Resource Protection
EPA Region- All
Federal
A Glimpse of the Past- A Vision for the Future: Senator Henry M.
Jackson and National Land Use Legislation
Summary
Daly begins this article by discussing Senator Jackson and his efforts to increase awareness of the
need to better manage the nations land. However, his efforts were defeated when the House of
Representatives refused to approve certain land use legislation that had been overwhelmingly
supported by the senate. Senator Jackson had the general belief that the best things for land use
reform is the cooperation by federal, state and local governments, to act in a mutually beneficial
way concerning land use legislation.
Published Article
A GLIMPSE OF THE PAST A VISION FOR THE FUTURE:
Senator Henry M. Jackson and National Land Use Legislation
by
Jayne E. Daly
Introduction
For four years, from 1970 until 1974, Senator Henry M. Jackson challenged the Congress
and people of the United States to come to terms with the urgent need to better manage this nation's
greatest resource - its land. During that time, he proposed three major pieces of federal legislation, in
an attempt to create a framework for national land use planning. For Jackson and many others,
intelligent land use planning was the central principal around which many competing interests could
be accommodated, including economic development, environmental preservation and social equity.1
1
Senator Jackson, during the introduction of the National Land Use

Planning Act, S. 3354, to the Senate, stated his belief that "[i]ntelligent land
Jackson's proposals met with significant support from many and varied constituencies. In
1972, and again in 1973, the Senate debated and passed national land use legislation; both times with
impressive majorities. Yet, despite the Senate's overwhelming support for the bill, the House of
Representatives failed to approve the measure.
To date, there have been no further significant attempts, at the federal level, to enact national
land use legislation, yet the discussion regarding the need for such a policy continues. Since the early
1970s, several states have enacted statewide land use planning statutes and others are considering
similar measures. In fact, there seems to be little debate regarding the need to better manage the land
and its resources. The question was, and remains, how.
use planning and management provides the single most important

institutional device for preserving and enhancing the environment, for
ecologically sound development and for maintaining conditions capable of
supporting a quality life and providing the material means necessary to
improve the national standard of living." 116 Cong. Rec. 1757-789 (1970)
(hereinafter CR). See Morris K. Udall, Land Use: Why We Need Federal
Legislation, in No Land Is An Island at 74 (Institute for Contemporary Studies,
1975). "If we are going to avoid the continued waste and exploitation of our
resources and the high economic and social costs resulting from existing land
use patterns in this country, we are going to have to develop a more rational
and comprehensive approach to land use planning." Id. President Nixon, in
his August, 1970 message forwarding a Council on Environmental Quality
report to the Congress, agreed with Senator Jackson's focus on land use
planning and wrote "I believe that the problems of urbanization, ... of resource
management and of land and water use generally can only be met by
comprehensive approaches which take into account the widest range of social,
economic and ecological concerns. I believe we must work toward a National
Land Use Policy to be carried out by an effective partnership of Federal State
and local governments together." S. Rep. No.1435, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 31,
32 (1970).
See also Policy Position of the National Governors Conference,
infra, note 35, in Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Background Papers
on Past and Pending Legislation and the Roles of the Executive Branch,
Congress and the States In Land Use Policy and Planning, 92d Congress, 2d
Sess. ( U.S. Gov't Printing Office, 1972) at 28-29 (hereinafter Background
Papers I).
Senator Jackson had a vision for the future but what he saw was not an idealized end state; it
was a process. He envisioned a national land use system where various levels of government federal, state and local - acted in a mutually beneficial and coordinated manner, to create land use
patterns that foster development, where desired, and conservation, where appropriate. The federal
government would enable the states to develop these land patterns by providing financial and
technical assistance.
In the early 1970s, the United States failed to seize Senator Jackson's vision for
comprehensive land use planning. The past twenty years have proven the folly of that decision.
Instead, today, this nation is faced with a series of single subject environmental regulations that are
cumulative, economically prohibitive, at times contradictory and worst of all, ineffective at preserving
the environment. Business and industry suffer from the expense of these inefficient and often
ineffective environmental regulations.2 The legal system further discourages development and raises
costs. In the last twenty years, sprawling development patterns have continued unabated, further
depleting open space and degrading the quality of the earth's natural resources. Additionally, the
persistence of social concerns such as environmental justice, lack of affordable housing and urban
blight are indicators that, despite many valiant efforts and programs, any attempt to deal with these
issues in an isolated fashion is futile, for they are inextricably connected with the overall development
of the land.
Land use planning is a tool that can be used to effectively promote social, environmental and
economic goals. It is well recognized today that this country's diversity prohibits the creation of a
uniform, federally mandated approach to land use planning. What is needed, instead, is a framework
2
John A. Cushman, Proposed Changes Simplify Rules on Pollution Control,

New York Times, March 17, 1995, at 20.
for decisionmaking, much like the one proposed by Senator Jackson, twenty five years ago.
91st Congress - Senate Bill S. 3354

Background
On January 29, 1970, Senator Henry M. Jackson introduced S. 3354, the National Land Use
Policy Act of 1970, in the Senate. 3 Earlier that month, another seminal piece of legislation, the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),4 had been signed into law by President Nixon. Senator
Jackson saw the land use planning bill as the logical next step in a national effort to provide a "quality
environment for present and future generations of Americans."5
Provisions
The National Land Use Policy Act (LUPA), was originally proposed as an amendment to the
Water Resources Planning Act of 1965, 6 to be administered by the Land and Water Resource
Council, an expansion of the existing Water Resource Council.7 It was believed that, as the Water
3
CR, supra note 1, at 1757. After introducing the bill, Senator Jackson
was joined by Senators Church, Cranston, Curtis, Gravel, Harris, Hart, Hartke,
Mansfield, McGovern, Metcalf, Moss, Nelson, Packwood, Ribicoff, Stevens,
Williams of New Jersey, Yarborough, and Young of Ohio as co-sponsors. S. Rep.
No. 1435, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) at 23 (hereinafter Senate Report 3354).
Over 120 land use related bills were introduced in the 91st Congress.
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, National Land Use Policy Legislation
- 93rd Congress: An Analysis of Legislative Proposals and State Laws (U.S.
Gov't Printing Office,1973) at 3.
4
42 U.S.C.A. 4321 to 4370(d) (West, 1993).
CR, supra note 1, at 1757.
79 Stat. 244. Note that as amended, the Water Resource Planning Act
would be known as the Land and Water Resource Planning Act. Title IV of that
Act was referred to as the National Land Use Policy.
7
S. 3354, 91st Congress, 2d Sess., (hereinafter Senate Bill 3354) at
Resource Council had existing responsibility for other programs concerning land resources, its
expertise, established communications network and staff organization made it the logical choice to
coordinate the new land use program.8
The purpose of S. 3354, was to
establish a national policy to encourage and assist the several states to more
effectively exercise their constitutional responsibilities for the planning, management,
and administration of the Nation's land resources through the development and
implementation of comprehensive "Statewide Environmental, Recreational and
Industrial Land Use Plans," (hereinafter referred to as Statewide Land Use Plans) and
management programs designed to achieve an ecologically and environmentally
sound use of the Nation's land resources.9
To achieve this purpose, the bill established a grant-in-aid program, providing funding to the states to
develop statewide land use plans.10 Federal funding was contingent, however, on state plans meeting
the federal guidelines established by the legislation.11
Federal planning grants were to be utilized to
(i)
prepare an inventory of the state's land and related resources;12
(ii)
collect and analyze information relating to population characteristics, economic trends,
402(d). "The Land and Water Resources Council shall be composed of the
Vice President; the Secretaries of Agriculture; Commerce; Health, Education
and Welfare; Housing and Urban Development; the Interior; Transportation;
and the Army; the Chairmen of the Council on Environmental Quality and the
Federal Power Commission; and the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency." Senate Report 3354, supra note 3, at 1.
8
Senate Bill 3354, supra note 7, 402(a).
10
Id. at 402(b).
11
Id. at 402(c).
12
Id. at 402(b)(1).
urban and rural growth patterns, capital improvement programs, significant land related information
(ecological, environmental, geological) that impacted upon the location of new communities or
public facilities, projected land use requirements for the next fifty years and any other information
needed to create a statewide plan;13
(iii) provide technical assistance and training programs in comprehensive planning;14 and
(iv) to establish arrangements for the exchange of information among all levels of
government within the state and with the federal government.15
In creating its land use plan, the state must first designate those areas within the state subject
to the plan, as well as those areas specifically exempted. 16 Next, the state must designate, from
those areas covered by the plan, the land most appropriate for conservation, as well as areas where
development should be encouraged.17 Under S. 3354, the state was to assume management over any
13
Id. at 403(b)(2)(A) through (H).
14
Id. at 403(b)(3).
15
Id. at 403(b)(4), (5), and (6).
16
Senate Bill 3354, supra note 7, 406(b)(1) and (2). Lands located within
the boundaries of any incorporated city that exercised land use controls and
any other land that the Land and Water Resource Council should designate,
are specifically exempted from inclusion in the land use plan. Id. at (b)(2)(A)
and (B).
17
Id. at 406(b)(3) provides that the plans must identify those areas of
the state
(A) where ecological, environmental, geological and
physical conditions dictate that certain types of land use
activities are incompatible and undesirable,
(B) whose highest and best use, based upon projected
State and National needs, on the Statewide Outdoor
Recreation Plan required under the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act, and upon other studies, is
recreational oriented use,
(C) which are best suited for natural resource, heavy
lands that, in its discretion, were of regional, statewide or national significance including, for
example, undeveloped ocean beaches, major rivers and lakes, transportation and utility corridors and
areas compatible for siting of heavy industries such as power plants and refineries. 18
Where
applicable, the state plan must also be consistent with any land use plans for nearby federal land, for
example, national parks and wildlife refuges, so that incompatible uses on non-federal land could not
damage or degrade the national resource.19
S. 3354 also required the Governor to designate, or create, an appropriate agency to
administer the planning program at the state level.20
That agency must meet certain federal
requirements including possessing statutory authority to acquire real property if necessary, to place
restrictions on land use activities in areas designated for special use by the plan, to conduct public
hearings with full public participation, and to have procedures to modify and change the state plan to
meet future requirements.21 Failure to meet these provisions subjected the state to termination of
federal financial assistance.22
Initially, a state could be eligible for funding by submitting a proposal to the Council setting
industrial and commercial development,

(D) where transportation and utility corridors are or
should, in the future, be located, and
(E) which furnish the amenities and the basic essentials
to the development of new towns and the revitalization
of existing communities.
18
19
Senate Bill 3354, supra note 7, 406(b)(7).
20
Id. at 403(a).
21
Id. at 406(c)(2).
22
Id. at 406(d).
forth the planning it proposed to undertake, the financial and technical assistance required, the
anticipated time necessary to complete such planning and the estimated cost of those activities.23 The
federal grant, if approved, would cover two-thirds of the state's expenses for the first three years;
thereafter, the grants were reduced to one-half.24 All grants would be made in addition to any other
planning money the state was already receiving under other federal programs.25 Additionally, once a
state had submitted a proposal for a planning grant, or had adopted a land use plan, all federal
agencies, conducting or supporting public works activities in an area subject to a state plan, were
required to comply with the provisions of that plan, unless there were overriding national policy
considerations.26
To retain eligibility for federal land use planning grants, a state was required to develop its
land use plan within three years after the enactment of the bill.27 The Land and Water Resource
Council was charged with periodic review of the plan to insure conformance with the provisions of
the National Land Use Policy Act.28 Funding was subject to withdrawal if the Council found the
provisions of the plan failed to conform to the legislative requirements, if the state failed to
23
Id. at 404(a).
24
Id. at 404(b).
25
Id. at 404(d). Planning money was primarily provided to states under

the 701 assistance program of the Housing Act of 1954. (40 U.S.C. 460 - 62)
(1970). The 701 program was developed to encourage planning including
surveys, land use studies, urban renewal plans, and technical services.
William K. Reilly, New Directions in Federal Land Use Legislation, Urban Law
Annual at 34 (1973).
26
Senate Bill 3354, supra note 7, 408(b).
27
Id. at 406(b)
28
Id. at 405(b)(5).
implement the plan, or if the state agency designated to administer the program did not meet federal
requirements.29 Prior to termination of funding, however, the state would be given notice and an
opportunity to present relevant evidence.30
If a state failed to adopt an acceptable land use plan within four years, its entitlement to other
federal programs, such as highway construction trust funds and other public work programs, would
be reduced at 20% per year until the state had complied with the act. 31 Additionally, the state would
be denied the issuance of any right of way permits to use or cross federal lands until it had complied
with the provisions of the act.32
Jackson saw this bill as providing a framework within which local, state and federal
governments could cooperate to determine how best to manage the land. It was introduced,
however, as a working draft, on which "federal, state, and local officials, planners and representatives
of industry, business and public interest [could] comment."33 Jackson hoped that through the hearing
process, national experts on land use would make recommendations and provide guidance to create a
29
Id. at 406(d). The agency must have the authority to implement the
state plan within four years of the date of the enactment of the act. CR, supra
note 1, at 1760.
30
Senate Bill 3354, supra note 7, 406(d).
31
Id. at 407(1).
32
Id. at 407(2).
33
CR, supra note 1, at 1758. As this bill had not developed in the usual
manner, at the request of a specific constituency, but rather was an attempt
to join various interests in pursuing a common agenda, rational land use,
Jackson and his aids saw the Senate hearings as an opportunity to discuss the
general concept of land use, to generate support for the idea of a national
land use policy and to discuss the particular components of the bill. Noreen
Lyday, The Law of the Land 12 (Urban Institute, 1976).
more orderly, systematic program of national, state and local land use planning.34
Hearings and Modifications
Hearings on S. 3354 were held before the full Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on
March 24, April 28, April 29, and July 8, 1970. Testimony was heard from twenty nine individuals,
representing various federal agencies, state organizations and private industries. Numerous written
communications were also received and entered in the record. 35 Generally, the testimony and
submissions with respect to S. 3354 were favorable.36 However, while most agreed that the issue of
34
35
Senate Report 3354, supra note 3, at 24. For example, in August, 1970,
the National Governors' Conference adopted a policy position calling for a
national land use policy.
This policy statement was submitted to the
Committee. The Governors proposed that a national land use policy should:
1.
foster economic growth of all states and regions;
2.
favor patterns of land use planning ... that are in accord with
sound environmental principals and ... encourage the wise and
balanced use of the nation's land and water resources;
3.
favorably influence population distribution such that scenic,
environmental and cultural amenities are available to all;
4.
contribute to revitalizing existing rural communities and
where appropriate new communities to offer diversity of
opportunity and living style;
5.
assist states to assume responsibility for major land use
planning and management decisions that are of regional, interstate
and national concern;
6.
facilitate coordination between federal programs to
encourage desirable patterns of land use planning.
7.
systematize methods for exchange of information
(environmental, land use and economic) to assist all levels of gov't
in the development and implementation of the National Land Use
Policy.
Background Papers I, supra note 1, at 28.
36
For example, Professor Lynton Caldwell of Indiana University, a coauthor of NEPA viewed the bill as an appropriate, timely measure, crucial to
the future development of the country. He saw the principal objective of such
a land use policy to be the creation of a coherent and effective system for
wise land use.
Professor Caldwell stressed the importance of a
10
land use needed to be addressed, they did not always agree on how to solve the problem. For
example:
-
on national guidelines: Senator Jackson realized the need for flexibility in land planning
and regulation, yet advocated for national guidelines. "Each state, with the advice of communities,
should devise its own plan. These plans should be diverse. Yet to allow diversity without prejudicing
the needs of the people, the legislation must supply the States with guidelines setting forth very
clearly the national goals we seek to attain."37 Patrick Lucey, Governor of Wisconsin testified that "a
strong set of national guidelines is necessary. These would apply to urban areas that transcend State
boundaries, regional and national transportation systems. They should delineate corridors through
which oil, gas and electrical energy can move and other areas of broader than statewide concern." 38
comprehensive, national land use plan. He asserted that the bill would
facilitate more detailed studies of land use regarding population trends,
resource depletion, water contamination, etc., so that problems could be
anticipated and dealt with in advance. Professor Caldwell was asked to remain
with the Committee to hear subsequent testimony and offer his opinions.
Hearings on S. 3354 Before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, 91st Congress, 1st Sess., at 29 (hereinafter Senate Hearings on S.
3354.) Philip Handler, President of the National Academy of Sciences noted
that "the Academy is pleased to have this opportunity to comment favorably
on the provisions of S. 3354 to strengthen federal support of programs that
expand our basic knowledge about land use and strengthen our scientific
understanding of the dynamics of economic and social growth. ... The program
authorized by S. 3354 would provide constructive incentives for strengthening
the scientific disciplines concerned with land use planning and improving the
political mechanisms that manage regional and statewide growth. It thus
represents an essential first step in our longer term objective of building a
sounder and more objective basis for allocating public and private resources
to developmental programs in a way that reflects a greater sensitivity to their
consequences for society as a whole and their impact on the physical
environment." Id. at 11.
37
38
Id.
11
Yet, despite the support, no national guidelines were ever added to the bill.
-
on who should make the land use decisions: Richard Babcock presented the American
Law Institute's Model State Land Development Code. "Local control should be given up only when
important state or regional interests clearly require it and then only to the degree necessary to achieve
the state or regional goal."39 The Council on Environmental Quality's40 chairman, Russell Train,
commented that increased state control over local zoning regulations was necessary.41 Senator
Jackson, in response, pointed to the empowering provisions in 403(a)(1) that provided for state
guidance, without constituting specific statewide zoning authority. Testimony was also presented by
the National Association of Counties, urging that planning should be accomplished at the city or
county level.42 National Service to Regional Councils testified that planning should be accomplished
by local officials acting through regional councils, which regions would be established by state law or
39
Id. at 30.
40
NEPA established the Council on Environmental Quality, a three-member

committee, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, within
the Executive Office of the President. CEQ was charged with developing
presidential policy opinions for issues involving the environment. 42 U.S.C.A.
4344. Undersecretary of the Interior, Russell Train, was confirmed as CEQ's
first chairman. Lyday, supra note 33, at 18.
41
Mr. Train also commented that the federal approach to land use must be
two fold:
1.
a land use program must identify and coordinate those activities
of the government which impact land under private as well as public
ownership; and
2.
the program must account for the existing relationship between
local, regional, state and federal agencies already involved in land use
planning.
Train did not conclusively support the legislation but rather "reserved his
options."
Senate Hearings on S. 3354, supra note 36, at 88.
42
12
designated by the Governor.43

- on environmental protection: Senator Jackson testified that land use plans should serve as
a framework against which decision-making on environmental protection could be made.
To a very great extent all environmental management decisions are ultimately related
to land use decisions. All environmental problems are outgrowths of land use
patterns. The collective land use decisions which we make today and in the future
will dictate our success in providing the American people with a quality life in quality
surroundings. 44
George Romney, Secretary for HUD noted that environmental protection and the advancement of
social goals can be mutually reinforcing.
Sometimes locally unwanted development may be important to environmental
protection objectives. For it is often the large or controversial project that is pushed
off, in the absence of any more suitable site, to a remote or marginal location where
there are marshlands, or forests, or valuable open space that would otherwise be
protected. But failure to remove unnecessary constraints and to improve the
efficiency with which land is made available for development has other adverse
consequences. For if an adequate supply of suitably prepared land cannot be made
available, there are human needs that will be filled only at much higher costs ....45
-
on the need for managing and exchanging information regarding land use: Some
witnesses testified that data collection, although important, would be extremely time consuming and
expensive.46 However, there was also testimony regarding the extensive information already amassed
by various federal agencies, including the Department of Interior - Bureau of Land Management
(data on federal lands); Geological Survey (mapping information); Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
and the National Park Service (data on public parks and recreational facilities); and the Bureau of
Reclamation (data on rivers and river basins). J. Phil Campbell, Under Secretary for the Department
43
44
Id. at 35.
45
Id.
46
Senate Hearings on S. 3354, supra note 36, at Appendix 1.
13
of Agriculture, in response to a question involving the types of data it gathered and the possible
impacts of a land use planning information center stated:
the Department has a capability to make national and interregional land use and
production projections, based on its information about soils, land use, conservation
needs, cropping patterns, projected crop yields for various kinds of soils, expanded
markets for agricultural and forest products, with assumptions about foreign markets
and population growth and distribution. The projections capability allows study of
the land use implications of a number of important issues such as population
redistribution, expanded agriculture exports, major resource developments
investments .... The research arm of the Department undertakes a variety of physical,
biological and behavioral science efforts of significance to land use policies and
programs. 47
- on the administrative authority and organization of the Land and Water Resources Council:
Honorable Lloyd Meeds, U.S. Congressman from Washington (House of Representatives) submitted
a written statement asserting that the Water Resources Council did not have enough experience to
provide the kind of leadership the land use program required. He also argued that only a system of
"hierarchical authority" would be effective in coordinating the activities of governmental agencies and
that any system based on cooperation was doomed to failure. 48 Rex Allen, President of the American
Institute of Architects, suggested that an enlarged CEQ with broader powers would be more effective
in administering the act.49
Amendments to S. 3354
As a result of the hearing process, S. 3354 underwent significant amendment. Some of the
major changes to the legislation included a strengthening of the provisions regarding conformity
review of state land use plans by the proposed Land and Water Resources Council. As modified, the
47
Id.
48
Id. at 103.
49
Id. at 38.
14
Council's review included not only a determination as to whether the state's plan conformed to the
guidelines set forth in the LUPA, but the Council was required to:
(i)
analyze the plan to determine if it would achieve the optimum use of the land and water
resources in the area involved;

(ii)
determine the efficacy of the plan in achieving the goals of other programs for the
development of agriculture, urban, energy, industrial, recreational, fish and wildlife and other
resources; and
(iii) determine if the plan would contribute to achieving the nation's environmental, social
and economic goals.50
Additionally, the Council was charged with creating a Federal Planning Information Center
where copies of all approved state plans would be kept, along with copies of all federal initiatives
affecting land use.51 To the extent practicable, the Council was to retain plans of local governments
and projects that would have regional impacts. Statistical data on past, present and projected land
use patterns was to be gathered, as well as studies regarding various techniques and methods for
evaluating land use related data. All information was to be made available to federal, state and local
agencies involved in land use planning and to interested members of the public.52
As modified, S. 3354 required states to develop and submit their statewide plan within five
years, as opposed to the original time limit of three years.53 Exempted from coverage under S. 3354,
50
Senate Report 3354, supra note 3, 104(c) of S. 3354, as reported out of

committee.
51
Id. at 3.
52
Id.
53
Id. at 10, 305(b).
15
as reported out of committee, were cities with populations in excess of two hundred and fifty
thousand, or those with populations in excess of 20 per cent of the total population of the state. 54 An
additional provision was added specifically noting that "nothing in this Act shall be deemed to
preclude the delegation by the state agency to local governmental entities of authority to plan for land
use and enforce land use restrictions adopted pursuant to the statewide land use plan." 55 Despite this
clause, however, the state agency was ultimately responsible for submitting a single, statewide plan to
the Council and for determining that all local plans created with federal funds were consistent with
the statewide plan.56
Also added was a provision that, upon completion, a state would submit its land use plan to
the Council and any federal agencies that the Council required. If the plan conformed to the federal
guidelines, was compatible with plans of other states in the region and did not conflict with other
federal programs it was approved.57 If a state's plan was denied, the state was entitled to appeal the
Council's decision to an ad hoc hearing board for a determination as to whether the disapproval was
reasonable. If found to be unreasonable, approval of the plan was mandated.58
Funding was increased to 90% for the first five years and reduced to two-thirds thereafter. 59
The sanctions provisions were also strengthened. If a state did not submit a statewide plan in
accordance with the act within five years, no federal agency was permitted to undertake any new
54
Id. at 10, 305(b)(1)(B).
55
Id. at 12, 305(e).
56
Id. at 12, 305(e)(1) through (3).
57
Id. at 12, 306(a)(3).
58
Id. at 13, 306(c).
59
Id. at 14, 310(a).
16
action or financially support any state action that may have a substantial adverse environmental
impact.60 Proposed appropriations for the Act were $100 million annually for the grant in aid
program and an additional $16 million for administration costs, including contract studies.61
Summary of S. 3354
As reported out of committee on December 14, 1970, S. 3354 was intended to afford
maximum discretion to state and local governments. It provided funds to the states to inventory their
resources and collect land related data. Based upon this information, the state would designate areas
where development was desired, and should be encouraged, as well as areas where conservation was
more appropriate. Plans were required to be submitted within 5 years and subject to review and
approval by the Council.
The intent of the act was to create a framework for coordination of federal, state and local
planning efforts, to avoid overlaps and inconsistencies. To further this objective, it included a system
of forums to resolve conflicts and establish consensus.62 In Senator Jackson's opinion, controversies
arose because federal agencies failed to consider the implications of their actions on the states.
Additionally, Jackson believed that most federal, state and local projects were commenced prior to
adequate planning. The Jackson bill, therefore emphasized future planning aimed at coordinating the
actions of all levels of government. To Jackson, comprehensive planning was not an academic
exercise but an integrative process where all involved agencies and the public worked together to
develop a vision for their communities and state.
60
Id. at 16, 315(a).
61
Id. at 16, 403.
62
Id. at 22.
17
Although the focus of the legislation was on the role of the state, the Act recognized the long
tradition of home rule in many areas across the nation and specifically provided for state delegation
of authority and financial incentives to local governments. 63 Strong incentives were also provided to
encourage implementation of the state plans.64 Once approved, all federal actions were required to
conform to the state plan. Thus, the Jackson vision saw the comprehensive land use plan as the key
to organizing the future development of the state.
Although Senator Jackson planned to bring the bill for a vote on the Senate floor before the
end of the year, Senator Muskie, exercising his senatorial prerogative, placed a personal hold on the
bill.65 Identical legislation was reintroduced the following year.
92d Congress - Senate bills S. 632 and S. 992

63
Id.
64
Id. at 21.
65
Lyday, supra note 33, at 15. Senator Muskie challenged the jurisdiction
of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee over land use asserting
that the issue overlapped the jurisdiction of several other committee including
banking, housing, agriculture, as well as others. A Muskie aid is reported as
stating, "Congress has not determined who has jurisdiction over land use. The
Interior Committee has just assumed it. Because the committee assumed it
does not mean it has the necessary jurisdiction." Washington, D.C. Evening
Star, December 29, 1970. Bad feelings between Muskie and Jackson can be
traced back to the days when NEPA was being crafted. Muskie's Public Works
Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution had been working on an
environmental policy bill since 1963, compiling a hearing record of nearly
16,000 pages. When Jackson's bill, S. 1075 (NEPA), was passed on the Senate
floor on July 10, 1969, Muskie was outraged. Peter J. Ognibene, Scoop: The
Life and Politics of Henry M. Jackson (Stein and Day, 1975) at 144-145.
Presidential politics were also involved as Muskie and Jackson were rivals for
the presidential nomination.
John C. Whitaker, Striking A Balance,
Environmental and Natural Resources Policy in the Nixon-Ford Years (American
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1976) at 49.
18
On January 26, 1971, Senator Jackson introduced S. 632, the Land and Water Resource
Planning Act of 1971.66 The provisions of the bill were identical to those contained in S. 3354, as
reported.67 Also introduced by Jackson in the 92nd Congress, at the request of President Nixon, was
S. 992, the administration's bill entitled the National Land Use Policy Act of 1971.68
Senator Jackson had urged the administration to support his bill or develop its own land use
policy. In April, 1970, John Ehrlichman, Nixon's White House Counsel,69 who had been a land use
attorney before joining the administration, met with members of the Senate Interior and Insular
Affairs Committee to discuss the issue of land use legislation.70 Although Ehrlichman would not
commit to any particular legislation, he noted that the CEQ staff had been instructed to draft a bill.
On February 17, 1971, that bill, S. 992 was introduced in the Senate and referred to Jackson's
committee.71
66
S. 632, 92d Congress, 1st Sess. (introduced January 26, 1971).
67
S. Rep. No. 92-869, 92d Congress, 2d Sess. (1972) at 43.
68
During the 92d Congress, pending before 13 committees, were over 200
measures relating to land use. The most significant of these acts were the
national land use policy, coastal and estuarine zone management, public
lands policy, surface mining and reclamation and powerplant siting. Congress
enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs, National Land Use Policy Legislation - 93rd Congress: An
Analysis of Legislative Proposals and State Laws (1973) at 3, 5 (hereinafter
Background Papers II).
69
John Ehrlichman, Witness to Power: The Nixon Years (Simon & Schuster,
1982) at 82.
70
John C. Whitaker, Striking A Balance, Environmental and Natural

Resources Policy in the Nixon-Ford Years (American Enterprise Institute for
Public Policy Research, 1976) at 155.
71
Nixon, in his February 8, 1971 message to Congress on the environment

described the purpose of the land use legislation. "While most land use
decisions will continue to be made at the local level, we must draw upon the
19
Background - S. 992
Within the CEQ, William Reilly and Boyd Gibbons were primarily responsible for crafting the
President's land use position.72 The Council members believed that land use problems stemmed from
the inability of local agencies to deal effectively with issues that extended beyond their limited
political jurisdictions.73 As a result, issues that required regional solutions, such as protection of
natural resources and housing, among others, went unaddressed. Reilly and Gibbons turned to the
Model Land Development Code developed by the American Law Institute for guidance in drafting
the administration's bill.74
The central thesis of the Model Code was that if a land use decision affected more than one
basic authority of state government to deal with land use issues that spill over
local jurisdictional boundaries. The states are uniquely qualified to effect the
institutional reform that is so badly needed, for they are closer to the local
problems than is the federal government and yet removed enough from local
tax and other pressures to represent the broader regional interests of the
public." Richard Corrigan, Interior Department Finesses HUD in Scramble Over
Land Use Program, National Journal Reports, March 20, 1971, at 598.
72
William K. Reilly, National Land Use Policy, in Erica Dolgin and Thomas
Guilbert, eds., Federal Environmental Law, Environmental Law Institute (West
Publishing, 1974) at 1417.
73
"[B]ecause of their limited geographic scope, [local governments] ...

cannot provide anything resembling a land use system. The narrow authority
of each permits it to ignore what the decisions of all will do to the natural and
human systems regionwide." Id. at 1417, citing Council on Environmental
Quality, First Annual Report at 184 (1970).
74
American Law Institute, A Model Land Development Code, Tentative

Draft No. 3, (April 22, 1971). Reilly had worked in Chicago with Richard
Babcock and Fred Bosselman, two attorneys who were instrumental in drafting
the ALI's Model Land Development Code. The ALI code, if adopted by state
legislatures, would replace the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act and the
Standard City Planning Act developed by the Department of Commerce in the
1920s. These acts were adopted by a majority of states and provided the
legal basis for municipal land use planning and zoning authority. Whitaker,
supra note 69, at 155. See also Lyday, supra note 33, at 19 - 24.
20
municipality, the state should exercise jurisdiction over that decision. It suggested that states
develop plans for these areas of "critical importance" and assume authority over all regulation for
those areas. The ALI estimated that only 10% of a state's land use decisions involved areas of critical
importance, leaving 90% of the decisionmaking in the hands of local government.75
Provisions of S. 992
The Nixon bill was similar to Jackson's in that both provided for federal grant programs;
however, S. 992 encouraged the states to develop land use control programs only for certain critical
areas and uses: areas of critical environmental concern, 76 key facilities,77 land use or development of
regional benefit78 and large scale development.79 Under the program, managed by the Secretary of the
Interior, a state would be eligible for biannual grants, not exceeding 50% of the cost of the state's
75
Whitaker, supra note 66, at 156.
76
"Areas of critical environmental concern" are defined as "areas where

uncontrolled development could result in irreversible damage to important
historic, cultural, or aesthetic values, or natural systems or processes, which
are of more than local significance; or life and safety as a result of natural
hazards of more than local significance." These areas include coastal zones
and estuaries, shorelands, flood plains of rivers, lakes and streams of state
importance, rare or valuable ecosystems; scenic or historic areas; and any
additional areas which a state determines to be of critical environmental
concern. S.992, supra note 64, at 102(a).
77
Key facilities are defined in the statute as "public facilities which tend to
induce development and urbanization of more than local impact." These
include airports, interstate highway interchanges, and major recreational land
and facilities. Id. at 102(b).
78
These include any development "for which there is a demonstrable need

affecting the interests of constituents of more than one local government
which outweighs the benefits of any applicable restrictive or exclusionary local
regulations." Id. at 102(c). Such developments include power plants, lowincome housing and other land uses often considered undesirable by a locality.
79
Id. at 104.
21
planning program.80 Twenty million dollars was initially allocated to cover a period of five years.
To be eligible to participate in the grant program, a state must first inventory and designate
areas of critical environmental concern and those impacted by key facilities. Additionally, the state
must establish methods to exercise control over land use decisions within these areas and assure that
local regulations do not unduly restrict developments of regional benefit.81 Once a state's plan was
approved, federal projects and activities were required to be consistent with that plan, unless there
were overriding national interests. 82 If a state had not planned in accordance with the statute, any
federal agency proposing any major federal action affecting land use was required to hold public
hearings in that state. Additionally, the agency was required to consider the land use implications of
the proposed action when conducting the environmental impact review mandated under NEPA.83
80
Id. at 103(a). The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development was

required to review and approve the state plans. Id. at 105(a). Prior to the
bills introduction, there was a jurisdictional battle waged over which
department should administer the plan. As HUD was very involved in urban
planning under the 701 program, then Secretary Romney believed that HUD
would be the most appropriate agency to oversee any land use legislation.
However, HUD had very little experience in nonurban planning and was seen
as too "pro-development" to administer what was essentially an
environmental bill. Whitaker, supra note 66, at 159. "[Interior Secretary
Rogers C. B.] Morton, in a last minute power play, took the key role from HUD
Secretary George W. Romney. The Council on Environmental Quality had
drafted a bill giving Romney's department primacy. But, at a meeting
between the two secretaries and CEQ Chairman Russell E. Train six days
before delivery of the President's Feb. 8 environmental message to Congress,
Morton insisted on a reversal of roles, and he prevailed." Richard Corrigan,
Interior Department Finesses HUD in Scramble Over Land Use Program,
National Journal Reports, March 20, 1971, at 597.
81
S. 992, supra note 64, at 104(a).
82
Id. at 106(a). No definition or explanation was provided, in the

legislation or otherwise, for the type of action that might constitute an
overriding national interest.
83
Id. at 107. As late as February 3, 1971, the bill contained a sanctions
22
Amendments to S. 992
On March 6, 1972, at the request of the executive, Senator Jackson introduced amendments
to S. 992.84 The focus of these changes was to add a provision for sanctions to the administration's
bill. Within three years after enactment, if a state was found ineligible for a management grant under
the act,85 federal funds for airport development, highways, and land and water conservation funds
would be withheld at a rate of 7% the first year of ineligibility, 14% the second and 21% in the
third.86
Any funds withheld were made available to states found eligible for assistance under the
act.87
provision: if any state failed to develop adequate procedures for producing a
land-use plan, the state's federal highway, outdoor recreation and airport
funds could be cut by 7% each year up to a maximum reduction of 21%. The
provision was abandoned because CEQ feared that the bill would never pass if
it contained sanctions. Whitaker, supra note 66, at 158.
84
Technically, the amendments were not made to S. 992, but rather to

provisions of other federal statutes, specifically, 15 of the Airport and Airway
Development Act, P.L. 91-258, 104 of title 23 of the United States Code, the
Federal Aid Highways Fund, and Subsection 5(b) of the Land and Water
Conservation Act of 1965, P.L. 88-578. These federal statutes contained
various funding programs which funding was, under the amendment to S. 992,
now subject to compliance with the national land use program. Amendment
No. 996. to S. 992, 92d Congress, 1st Sess., (March 6, 1972) (hereinafter S.
992 Amendments).
85
A state could be found ineligible if its plan was not approved by the
Secretary of the Interior, if it failed to adequately implement the plan, or
otherwise failed to follow the requirements of the legislation.
86
S. 992 Amendments, supra note 84. It is not clear what would occur if a
state failed to participate in the national land use planning process. If a state
never submitted an application for a grant, it could hardly be considered
"ineligible" under the program. The sanctions, however, were imposed only
on those states found "ineligible" to receive a grant. Nonetheless, it appears,
considering the intent of the legislation, that sanctions would be imposed.
87
Id.
23
The Debate
The fundamental differences between the two bills were detailed in the Washington Post at
the end of 1971. On November 17, 1971, an editorial focusing on the need for national land use
legislation specifically supported Jackson's bill, as it required states to engage in comprehensive
planning, as opposed to the administration's approach of selective area planning.88 Shortly after this
editorial ran, CEQ's chairman, Russell Train responded, giving three reasons why the Administration's
approach was superior. First, the results of comprehensive planning, required for nearly half a
century, had been at best unimpressive.89 Secondly, state's should be involved in land use planning
only when concerns of state or regional significance were at issue. Third, developments such as low
income housing were often excluded by localities despite a need in the region for this type of
housing. Train wrote, "the administration's land use bill goes beyond planning to the central issue of
control ... calling for a fundamental reallocation of responsibilities between state and local
88
The fundamental difference between the

two bills: Jackson's calls for comprehensive statewide
planning based on over-all economic, social and
environmental concerns. It challenges the planners to
assure a brighter future by bringing our economic and
social needs into balance with the requirements of the
natural ecology. The administration bill would have the
state plans focus only on areas of critical environmental
concern. ... We need more than that. It is none too soon
to get started on acting rather than merely reacting to
the problems posed by the second America. It must be
comprehensively planned, as Senator Jackson proposes,
if it is to be a liveable place.
Editorial, Planning the Second America, Washington Post, Nov. 20, 1971,
reprinted in Background Papers I, supra note 1, at 21.
89
Train was referring to the requirement contained in the Standard Zoning

Enabling Act, adopted by most states, that required zoning to be in
conformance with a comprehensive plan.
24
governments where regional issues are involved."90

Senator Jackson's response ran on December 28, 1971.91 He cited several reasons why the
Administration's bill was inadequate to foster wise land management. First, the categories listed in S.
992 requiring the state's attention, could be defined so narrowly or broadly as to negate any positive
effect. "For example, one state might declare its entire coastal zone to be an area of critical
environmental concern and thereby inhibit construction of needed housing. ... Another state, anxious
to expand its tax base, could narrowly define the areas of critical concern and thereby limit
consideration of environmental requirements." Additionally, unless the state labels an area as one of
the three categories, it does not have any authority with regard to planning for that area. Third,
Jackson believed that the label approach to legislation did not encourage flexibility; rather it
precipitated "brush fire", short-term action. Pressures from conservationists could evoke sudden
state assumption of control over the proposed sites of power plants; pressure from transportation
advocates would invite state control over highway and air sites. According to Jackson, the exercise
of state control to solve these immediate problems "invites narrow consideration of the important
problems at hand. Comprehensive planning would ensure a broad and careful consideration and
integration of all relevant social, economic and environmental concerns. Comprehensiveness refers
to the breadth of consideration and does not call for indepth intervention by the state in truly local
decisions."92
90
Russell E. Train, Letter to the Editor, Washington Post, December 15,

1971, reprinted in Background Papers I, supra note 1, at 22-23.
91
Senator Henry M. Jackson, Letter to the Editor, Washington Post,

December 28, 1971, reprinted in Background Papers I, supra note 1, at 2425..
92
Id. at 25.
25
Secretary of the Interior, Rogers C. B. Morton had the last word. 93 Although clearly an
advocate of the Administration's position, he commended the Editor of the paper for "putting his
finger on the heart of the environmental issue. Land use, in fact, is the key to all the rest of our
environmental problems."94
The Combination Bill - Amendments to S. 632
Four days of hearings on the two bills were held on May 18, June 7, 22 and 23, 1971. 95
Most of the testimony addressed issues similar to those raised in the editorial exchange:
comprehensive planning as opposed to designated area planning, state as opposed to local control,
and the need for specific environmental standards to be included in the bill to prevent states from
favoring development over conservation. Shortly after the hearings, Stephen Quarles, an Interior
staff member, was given the task of creating a compromise bill, in an attempt to harmonize the
Jackson and Administration's proposals.96
The amended version of S. 632, the Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance Act of 1972,
introduced in June, 1972, combined the planning features of the Jackson bill with the regulatory
framework of the Administration's.97 It was favorably reported out of the Senate Interior and Insular
93
Rogers C.B. Morton, Letter to the Editor, Washington Post, January 4,

1972, reprinted in Background Papers I, supra note 1, at 25 - 27.
94
Id. at 27.
95
The Commerce, Banking and Housing and Urban Affairs Committees

also received comments on the bills during hearings on other proposals.
Background Papers II, supra note 64, at 5.
96
Lyday, supra note 33, at 28.
97
Stephen Quarles decided to adopt the category approach of the

Administration's bill as he believed that the states would be unable to set up
comprehensive programs. James Noone, Senate, House Differ in Approaches
to Reform of Nation's Land-Use Laws, National Journal, July 22, 1972, 1193.
26
Affairs Committee on June 19, 1972.98 As reported, the program would be administered through the
Secretary of the Interior, acting through a newly created Office of Land Use Policy Administration. 99
Also established was a National Advisory Board on Land Use Policy, an interagency group, created
to advise the Secretary on land use policies and programs. The Board would also assist the Secretary
in review of the state plans.100
The compromise bill retained the land use data collection requirements of the original
Jackson proposals while adding some new requirements. Within three years from the enactment of
the bill, the state must establish an adequate state agency to administer the plan; create an inventory
of land and natural resources; collect data on population trends, economic characteristics and
projections; and develop projections for the quantity of land needed for various land uses. In
addition, the state should establish a method to identify large scale and regional benefit developments;
to inventory and designate areas of critical environmental concern and those impacted by key
facilities; to coordinate programs and services of state and local agencies affecting land use; and hold
public hearings on the planning process, affording the public and local governments an opportunity to
98
S. Rep. 92-869, 92d Congress, 2d Sess. (June 19, 1972) (hereinafter

Senate Report 632). The Administration's bill, S. 992, was not reported out of
Committee.
99
Id. at 202.
The establishment of an Office of Land Use Policy
Administration represented a compromise between the Administration's bill,
vesting authority in the Interior Department, and Jackson's which proposed an
interagency approach through expansion of the Water Resources Council.
"The real heart of the original Jackson bill was that it should not be mission
oriented, that it would not aim to further certain social, economic or
environmental goals. The Senator's notion is that land use is an effective tool
to balance these kinds of considerations. It was decided that the new office in
Interior - and not some mission oriented bureau - would be a fairly neutral
place to put it." Noone, supra note 97, at 1193.
100
Senate Report 632, supra note 98, at 203.
27
participate.101
S. 632, as amended, differentiated between land use planning and programs. Whereas
Jackson's original proposal was for states to engage in comprehensive planning, developing
statewide plans, the new bill required only that states create, within five years of enactment, land use
programs for the four areas of concern detailed in the Administration's bill: areas of critical
environmental concern; areas impacted by key facilities; large scale developments; and large scale
subdivisions. The state could exercise authority over these areas in one of two ways: either directly
or through review of local government plans. The state, however, must possess the statutory
authority to override local plans that were inconsistent with the state's land use plan for a designated
area.102
With respect to the designation of areas within the state, the Secretary of the Interior was
required to review the plan to determine that the state had not omitted any areas of critical
environmental concern that were of national significance. Additionally, for the plan to be approved,
the Secretary must find that the state was engaged in a good faith effort to implement the plan, that it
had been approved by the Governor, was coordinated with plans of state agencies, federal agencies,
local government, environmental programs including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, and
that the state was participating in the HUD 701 planning program.103
The sanctions provision from the Administration's bill was included, whereby any state found
ineligible for a grant, after five years, would have their funding for airport development, federal
highways and land and water conservation reduced each year by 7% cumulatively, for a maximum of
101
Id. at 302.
102
Id. at 303.
103
Id. at 304.
28
21% at the end of three years, eight years after enactment of the bill. 104 The Interior Department
estimated that states were receiving $1,756,775,000 under these three programs. Seven percent of
that amount would equal $123,007,000. 105 However, as opposed to allowing these monies to be
made available to the eligible states, any money retained would be held by the Treasury until the state
complied with the requirements of the land use program. At that time, all monies previously withheld
were to be returned to the state.106
Appropriations were set at $100 million annually for eight years, with an additional $10
million annually, over five years, for administration.107 Funding allotments to states were set at 90%
for five years, reduced to two-thirds thereafter. These amounts were set in accordance with the
provisions contained in the Jackson bills; the Administration had advocated for only $20 million over
five years, with grants not exceeding 50% of state costs.108
Debate and Amendment of S. 632
Senator Jackson, during the Senate floor debate on S. 632, stated that the measure
"contained the best features of [his] previous land use bill, the Administration's proposal ... and the
104
Id. at 307(d). These sanctions were stronger than those contained in

the Jackson bills for federal highway funds were not subject to reduction under
S. 3354 or S. 632 as introduced. According to the Senate Report, these three
programs were chosen for withholding of funds as they were deemed to have
the most significant long range and irreversible impacts upon land use
patterns because of the exceptional influence they have on development.
105
Noone, supra note 97, at 1193.
106
Senate Report 632, supra note 98, at 307(d).
107
Id. at 510.
108
See footnote 80, supra, and accompanying text.
29
many recommendations received during the 2 1/2 years of Committee debate." 109 He noted that the
proposal was supported by the Governors' Conference, nearly 30 individual governors,
representatives of county and city governments, all major conservation and environmental groups,
many industries, farm groups and water resource associations.110
Several amendments were offered to the bill during the floor debate. In particular, two
amendments substantively altered the bill. Senator Clifford Hansen's amendment virtually eliminated
the sanctions provision. Senator Len B. Jordan's amendment cut the authorization for appropriations
from $800 million, in the aggregate over eight years, to $170 million. Additionally, allotments to
states were reduced from 90% for the first five years and two-thirds thereafter to two-thirds for the
first two years and 50% thereafter.111 On September 19, 1972, the Senate passed the amended Land
Use Policy and Planning Assistance Act of 1972 by a vote of 60 to 18. 112 The House version of the
bill, H.R. 7211, never reached the floor for debate.113
93rd Congress - Senate Bill 268
On January 9, 1973, the Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance Act of 1973, S. 268, was
introduced to the Senate, identical to S. 632 as amended and passed by the Senate during 1972. 114
Senator Jackson, in his introductory statement to the Senate, noted his displeasure with the recent
amendments to the bill.
109
110
Id.
111
Id. at 16.
112
Id. at 13.
113
Id.
114
S. 268, 93d Congress, 1st Sess. (January 9, 1973).
30
As is well known, I was and remain opposed to two successful amendments striking
the sanctions from the Act and reducing the funding by two thirds. Several
amendments proposed by Mr. Muskie which were not adopted did raise significant
issues which deserve further scrutiny. Therefore, although the proposal I introduce
today is virtually identical to the Senate-passed measure, the Committee will hold
hearings early in February where these issues and the critical questions of funding and
sanctions can be fully explored.115
Also introduced in the 93d Congress was the Administration's bill, S. 924.116
Hearings on the two bills, S. 268 and S. 924, were held on six days, February 6, 7, 26, 27,
April 2 and 3.117 In an attempt to focus critical attention on the legislation, Senator Jackson invited
the chairmen of the Senate Committees on Agriculture and Forestry, Banking, Housing and Urban
Affairs, Commerce, Public Works and the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution to testify before
and participate with the Interior Committee in the hearings. Only two Senators, Magnuson and
Hollings accepted the invitation and testified.118 In addition, at Senator Jackson's invitation, witnesses
were asked to address, by testimony or written response, a series of questions regarding policy issues
115
Congressional Record, January 9, 1973, at 380.
116
S. Rep. 93-197, 93d Congress, 1st Sess. (1973) at 85 (hereinafter Senate

Report S. 268). There were four significant differences between the Jackson
bill and the Administration's bill, as introduced:
1.
the executive's bill provides for land use programs to be
developed within three years, as opposed to five years in S. 268;
2.
the administration's bill contained the sanctions provision, as
originally proposed;
3.
S. 924 provides for a federal review board to hear appeals from
states who have been determined ineligible for the grant program. The
Jackson bill provides for an ad hoc board comprised of federal and state
members.
4.
the Nixon bill would link the implementation of the Coastal Zone
Management Act with the national land use policy act.
James Noone, Senate Committee Acts on Land Reform; Bill Would Aid States'
Planning Role, National Journal, June 2, 1973 at 796.
117
Senate Report S. 268, supra note 116, at 85.
118
Id. at 85.
31
that were raised in discussions on S. 632. 119 In all, 41 witnesses testified including governors, state
legislators, experts in land use, conservationists, business leaders, members of the administration and
academics.120
There was little discussion during the hearings involving whether or not a national land use
policy was desirable; most witnesses acknowledged that the policy was necessary. Instead, the
debate focused on specific issues such as the need for national policy guidelines, the desirability of
sanctions, the appropriate level of funding, the allocation of funding to the states, property rights
protection and the federal review of state plans.
One of the central issues addressed during the hearings dealt with the need for national
policy guidelines.121 Three basic arguments were raised in favor of national land use guidelines. First,
without guidance, states might adopt land use programs that could frustrate issues of national interest
such as environmental protection and energy supplies. Second, without guidance, the defacto land
use policy of the nation would be the equivalent of fifty different state land use policies. Third,
interstate inefficiencies could result from the divergent land use policies of the states.122
Several arguments were made against the legislation containing any national guidelines. First,
the diversity of the United States prohibits the issuance of any meaningful, uniform guidelines. What
119
Background Papers II, supra note 64, at 81, 82.
120
Id.
121
See, for example, statement by John Loftis, Jr., Vice President, Exxon Co.,
USA. "The federal role should not be to participate directly in land use
planning ... but should be to provide broad guidelines or establish national
goals to inform state land use planners of national needs." Hearings on S.
268 Before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 93d
Congress, 1st Sess., at Part, 87 (hereinafter Senate Hearings S. 268).
122
32
might be appropriate for an urbanized eastern state may be completely inappropriate for a rural
western state.
Additionally, the objectives of the national land use legislation, namely the
achievement of certain social, environmental and economic goals were contained in several other
federal statutes, and therefore, as S. 268 did not repeal these laws, the national interests were already
protected. Finally, there was no semblance of consensus regarding what the substance of national
guidelines should be.123
The Committee, in response to these arguments, adopted an amendment to S. 268 providing
for a three year study by CEQ, with participation by the Interagency Advisory Board on Land Use
Policy,124 the states and local governments. The study was to determine the need for and appropriate
substance of national guidelines.125 A report was to be submitted, at the end of three years from the
date of enactment, at which time Congress would determine what, if any, national guidelines were
appropriate.126
Considerable attention was focused on the need for sanctions to enforce the provisions of the
national land use bill. CEQ chairman Russell Train advocated for tough sanctions. He stated, "many
have argued that if the land use bill simply contains sufficient money, the job will get done. I
disagree. ... [I]t is the premise of the Administration's approach that without sanctions in the bill,
123
Id. at 49.
124
Formerly referred to, in S. 632, as the National Advisory Board on Land

Use, the Interagency Advisory Board on Land Use Policy was to contain
essentially the same members and have the same duties as the National
Advisory Board on Land Use. S. 268, as reported, June 7, 1973, at 304,
reprinted in Senate Report S. 268, supra note 116, at 1-34 (hereinafter S. 268
as reported).
125
S. 268, as reported, supra note 124, at 307.
126
Id. at 307.
33
prospects for truly effective state land use control will be compromised."127 Fred Bosselman also
testified in favor of sanctions. "My experience has made me strongly aware of the difficulty states
will have in reaching a consensus on a rational land use policy. ... There will be great temptation to
avoid the hard decisions that need to be made. Meaningful sanctions in the federal legislation will
help accomplish the head-knocking that will be needed." 128 Although Senator Jackson strongly
favored the sanctions' provision, he feared that other committees, specifically those with jurisdiction
over highway and airport projects, would delay movement of the bill if it contained the provision.
Jackson decided the best approach would be to offer the amendment during the floor debate in the
Senate.129
Senators Clifford Hansen and Paul Fannin argued that sanctions were the equivalent of a
termination of the state's right to determine its own future. 130 Additionally, they alleged that sanctions
extended the federal role in land use control into land use decisionmaking. After considering all the
arguments, the Committee decided against including the sanctions provision contained in the
Administration bill and S. 632, as introduced.
Instead, the only funds to be withheld for
noncompliance with the Act were the planning monies allocated under S. 268.131
Another principal issue raised in the hearings concerned funding: the amount of money that
would be appropriated for the act and how it would be allocated to the states. Senator Jackson
supported reinstating the funding level as originally provided in S. 632, namely $100 million annually
127
Senate hearings S. 268, supra note 121, at Part 1, 182.
128
Id. at 343.
129
130
Senate hearings S. 268, supra note 121, at Part 4, 103, 104.
131
34
for eight years, calling the Administration's recommendation of $20 million "woefully inadequate." 132
With the sole exception of the Administration, all witnesses were unanimous in the opinion that the
higher funding level was necessary. The Committee adopted an amendment increasing the funding to
$100 million per year for eight years133 and reinstating the original Jackson levels of allocation.
Grants would cover 90% of the state's costs for the first five years and two-thirds thereafter.134
Concerns were raised regarding protection of the rights of property owners. Senators Jordan
and Hansen had proposed an amendment to S. 632 during the Senate floor debate that required
compensation be paid to landowners whose property values were diminished as a result of
regulations issued pursuant to the act. 135 That amendment was adopted and incorporated into S. 632.
During the hearings on S. 268, the propriety of that amendment was discussed. Questions about the
potential effects of this amendment were raised by several private persons and government officials.
John Whitaker, Acting Secretary of the Interior, summed up the Committee's opinion by stating:
Since the right to petition for compensation for an unconstitutional denial
of due process would exist irrespective of [the Jordan amendment], that
section could be construed as requiring compensation for any restricted
use under the state's land use program whether the restriction was
constitutional or not. This undercuts a fundamental purpose of the bill
which is to encourage states to use their regulatory authority to achieve
land use objectives to the fullest extent permissible under the federal and
132
133
S. 268, as reported, supra note 124, at 608.
134
Id. at 606.
135
"Any person having a legal interest in land, of which a state has

prohibited or restricted the full use and enjoyment thereof, may petition a
court of competent jurisdiction to determine whether the prohibition
diminishes the use of the property so as to require compensation for the loss
and the amount of compensation to be awarded therefor." S. 632, 303(b)(2)
(E), Congressional Record, September 19, 1972, at 31220.
35
state constitutions.136
The Committee chose to delete the Jordan amendment and replace it with the following:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed as enhancing or diminishing the
rights of owners of property as provided by the Constitution of the
United States or the constitution of the State in which the property is
located.137
It was believed that this wording assured property owners that their constitutional right to
compensation for an unconstitutional taking of their land was protected.138
There was also significant testimony regarding the scope of review which the federal
government should have over state plans. Interior Secretary Morton testified that this authority
would not be to dictate what should be in the state program, but rather only to judge whether the
state had complied with the spirit of the act. 139 Governor Robert Docking of Kansas testified that
while the states should determine the contents of the plan, the federal government should ensure that
no state's plan is so lax as to compromise the goals of other states. 140 Governor Wendall Ford of
Kentucky suggested that even on issues of national concern, the states should be given the
opportunity to deal with the problem, prior to federal intervention.141
The Committee chose to adopt an amendment limiting the federal review of state plans to a
determination as to whether the state made a "good faith effort" with respect to land use planning
adjacent to federal lands. With respect to designation of critical areas of concern, however, the
136
137
S. 268, as reported, supra note 124, at 203(f).
138
139
140
Id. at 88.
141
Id.
36
federal government was only required to find that the state's plan was reasonable.142
The bill, as amended, was ordered reported by the Committee by a vote of 10-3 on May 29,
1973.143 After two days of floor debate, with approximately a dozen amendments proposed on the
floor, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 64-21, virtually as reported. 144 It was believed by many
that the 93rd Congress would finally pass land use legislation.145
The House of Representatives

Over the years that Jackson's bills were before the Senate, similar bills had been introduced in
the House of Representatives, yet the House had moved very slowly.146 Rep. Wayne Aspinall, chair
of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, asserted early jurisdictional control over the
land use issue by proposing a bill based on an early draft of S. 992. 147 However, during the 92d
142
143
Id.
144
James A. Noone, Congress Moves Toward National Land Planning and

Management Legislation, National Journal, June 30, 1973 at 964.
The
following were the votes on the significant amendments offered on the floor:
On sanctions: Senator Jackson's proposal that the provision be
reinstated was defeated 44 to 52. During the debate, Jackson said he
preferred to call the provision an "additional incentive" rather than a sanction.
On funding: the Administration offered an amendment to decrease the
funding. It was defeated by a vote of 27 to 57.
145
James A. Noone, Land Use Planning Bill Headed for House Floor Vote,
National Journal, February 2, 1974. "Land use planning, regarded by the White
House and many on Capitol Hill as the most important environmental measure
before the 93rd Congress, finally has cleared committee in the House, making
it likely that a bill will be enacted this year." Id. at 183.
146
Richard Corrigan, Interior Department Finesses HUD in Scramble Over

Land use Program, National Journal, March 20, 1971, at 597.
147
Id. at 597.
37
Congress, while the Senate was reconciling the provisions of Jackson's S. 632 with the
Administrations' S. 992, the House bill included provisions not contained in either of the Senate bills,
regarding public lands. It required federal agencies to develop land use plans for all federal lands
under their jurisdiction in an attempt to achieve maximum benefit of those lands for the public.148
Environmental groups and the Nixon Administration opposed the Aspinall bill fearing that it would
lead to increased development of federal land devoted to conservation.149
When Aspinall was defeated in the democratic primary election in Colorado in September,
1972, Morris Udall, an environmentalist, took over for Aspinall as the chair of the House Interior and
Insular Affairs Subcommittee on Environment.150
None of the five bills considered by the
subcommittee during the 93rd Congress contained any provisions dealing with public lands.151
Hearings on the bills were held on May 7 and 8, 1973 but the Interior Committee did not report the
bill, H.R. 10294, until February 13, 1974.152
As reported, the House bill was very similar to the Senate's, although it differed from S. 268
on a few provisions. As opposed to the Senate bill that gave the states five years to complete land
use plans, the House proposal gave only three. Additionally, while H.R. 10294 required the states to
148
James A. Noone, Senate, House Differ On Approaches to Reform of

Nation's Land Use Laws, National Journal, July 22, 1972, at 1194.
149
Id. at 1192. "Although environmentalists and the Administration are

enthusiastic about enactment of a bill covering private land use, they would
sacrifice that goal if necessary to prevent Aspinall's public lands provisions
from becoming law." Id.
150
Stanley Plotkin, Keep Out, The Struggle for Land Use Control 191
(University of California Press, 1987).
151
James A. Noone, Congress Considers Bills Increasing State, Federal Role

in Land Use Decisions, National Journal, May 5, 1973 at 637.
152
H. Rep. No. 798, 93d Congress, 2d Session (1974).
38
assess the environmental impact of land development, it did not require the states to develop a
program to monitor and control, if necessary, that development.153
The prospect for enacting national land use legislation was seriously diminished on February
26, 1974, when, much to the surprise of many, the 15 member House Rules Committee voted to
indefinitely postpone consideration of H.R. 10294.154 That vote came after the White House
withdrew its support for the bill, favoring instead a version proposed by Senator Steiger, H.R. 11325,
that did not provide any state oversight of local planning decisions, but allocated $200 million over
five years to local governments.155
Udall was dismayed at the vote in the Rules Committee and quickly scheduled additional
hearings on the Interior and Insular Affairs bill, H.R. 10294, to allow that bill's opponents to voice
153
James A. Noone, Land Use Planning Bill Headed for House Floor Vote,
National Journal, February 2, 1974 at 183.
154
James A. Noone, Land Use Bill Derailed After White House Ends Support,
National Journal, March 9, 1974 at 368. "The Rules Committee vote caught
environmentalists and others who supported the bill off guard. These groups
include[d] the National Governors' Conference, the National League of Cities U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Association of Counties." Id. at
369.
155
Id. at 368. Several theories have been advanced to explain why the
White House withdrew its support for the national land use planning bill.
Jackson and Udall charged that Nixon had changed his position to gain
conservative support in an attempt to escape impeachment. Lyday, supra
note 33, at 40. John Whitaker, a former Nixon Administration official wrote,
"the President would not have been so naive as to think that by dropping land
use, or even by taking a series of actions to please conservatives, he could
influence votes on the impeachment issue. It is more likely that Nixon had
never had any genuine commitment to land use but had gone along with
Ehrlichman... . When Nixon heard charges from conservative lawmakers that
the bill did in fact threaten constitutional rights, Ehrlichman was gone, and the
President had no one to turn to whom he implicitly trusted on the matter."
Whitaker, supra note 66, at 165-166.
39
their concerns.156 However, by the time the hearings had ended, it was clear that the support from
key interest groups, necessary to pass the legislation, was fading.157 Environmentalists, although they
did not oppose Udall's bill, did not take effective action to ensure its passage. 158 Former allies,
including the forest product managers and other farm lobby groups withdrew their support or
publicly denounced the bill.159 Much of the erosion in support was caused by those opposed to the
bill, namely the Liberty Lobby, Chamber of Commerce and John Birch Society. These groups,
through newsletters and pamphlets, rallied public support against the proposal. Many Congressmen
received letters from their constituents alleging that the land use bill infringed on private property
rights and would lead to federal zoning.160
Despite the adversity, in May, 1974, Udall was successful in persuading the Rules Committee
to send the bill to the House floor under a rule calling for a vote on the Steiger bill before
consideration of the Committee proposal.161 On June 12th, the House met to vote on whether to
consider the land use reform legislation. The final tally was amazingly close; land use reform was
156
157
Plotkin, supra note 150, at 198.
158
William K. Reilly, National Land Use Planning: A Legislative Agenda, in

Land Use: Tough Choices In Today's World 14 (Soil Conservation Society of
America, 1977).
159
160
Lyday, supra note 33, at 38. See Malcolm Forbes Baldwin, The Federal
Government's Role in The Management of Private Rural Land, in Michael J.
Lacey, Ed., Government and Environmental Politics (Woodrow Wilson Center
Press, 1991) at 199. "The Chamber of Commerce waged a vigorous, negative
and alarmist lobbying campaign that raised fears in the House concerning
federal zoning and taking without compensation." Id.
161
40
defeated by seven votes, 204 to 211.162 Thus, the legislation was defeated without being discussed
on the floor.
The economic recession that engulfed the nation during the next few years resulted in a
severe drop in any type of development. This, coupled with the Ford Administration's pledge of no
new spending programs, as well as the politically unpopular position of supporting anything that
might appear to limit jobs and growth, ended the call for land use law reform at the national level in
the United States.163
162
120 C.R. Part 10 at H 5041-42.
163
41
Conclusion
Twenty five years ago, Senator Jackson, in crafting NEPA and the National Land Use
Planning Act, offered the United States an alternative path to resource protection: planning.164 "It is
only in the past few years," Jackson wrote in 1971, "that the dangers of muddling through events and
establishing environmental policy by inaction and default have been very widely perceived. Today,
with the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to see that our governmental institutions have too often
reacted only to crisis situations. We always seem to be calculating the short-term consequences of
environmental mismanagement, but seldom the long-term consequences or the alternatives open to
future action."165
Through NEPA,
federal agencies are required to look forward and anticipate the
environmental impacts of their programs and projects. 166 It also requires cooperation among all
164
Although the planning aspects of LUPA are clear, Jackson also saw NEPA
as a planning tool. In a Memorandum to the Members of the Senate
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs written three years after the passage
of NEPA, Jackson wrote: "The public has been most responsive to NEPA. It is
the awareness of an informed citizenry that has enabled us to make NEPA an
effective and operational planning tool." Congressional Research Service,
Environmental Policy Division, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; An
Analysis Of Proposed Legislative Modifications, 93d Congress, 1st Session,
(1973) at (v).
165
Henry M. Jackson, Environmental Policy and the Congress, 11 Natural

Resource Journal 403, 405 (1971).
166
NEPA applies to "every recommendation or report on proposals ... and

other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment." 42 U.S.C.A. 4332(2)(c) There is a "proposal" if the agency
proposes to take action, itself or, if the agency issues a permit, approves a
lease, grants a license or funds another party to act, which action may affect
the environment. Scientists' Institute for Public Information, Inc. v. Atomic
Energy Commission, 156 U.S.App.D.C. 395, 481 F.2d 1079 (1973). The term
"major" has been interpreted by the courts as reinforcing the term
"significant." Thus, actions which are deemed not to have a significant
environmental impact will most likely not be considered a major action.
42
federal agencies that may be involved in the project. 167 Under NEPA, all direct, indirect and
cumulative environmental impacts of the action must be considered, as well as alternatives to the
proposal and possible means of mitigating adverse effects.168
NEPA's mandate, however, is
essentially procedural; it does not create any new substantive rights and does not require that a
federal agency make a particular decision in light of its investigation. 169 The focus, instead, is on
making informed decisions.
Jackson saw the National Land Use Policy Act as an integral component in crafting this
nation's environmental policy.
To a very great extent, all environmental management decisions are intimately related
to land use decisions. All environmental problems are outgrowths of land use
patterns. The collective land use decisions which the nation makes in the future will
dictate our success in environmental management; and the land use decisions of today
will shape the environment future generations will enjoy.170
S. 3354 provided money to states and local governments to improve their land use planning
Cronin v. United States Department of Agriculture, 919 F.2d 439 (7th Cir.
1990).
167
In certain instances, a full Environmental Impact Statement may be

required. Under these circumstances, the lead agency, as well as all other
federal agencies that are involved in the project, including those who have a
special expertise with respect to the environmental impact of the project are
encouraged to participate in the process. 42 U.S.C.A. 4332.
168
Id.
169
Courts have been extremely deferential when reviewing of the

adequacy of an EIS. See National Trust for Historic Preservation v. Dole, 828
F.2d 776 (D.C. Cir. 1987)(standard of review is whether the agency's action is
arbitrary and capricious); Warm Springs Dam Task Force v. Gribble, 621 F.2d
1017 (1980) (test is whether the agency made a good faith attempt to discuss
the foreseeable environmental consequences.)
170
Henry M. Jackson, Environmental Policy and the Congress, 11 Natural

Resource Journal 403, 412 (1971).
43
capabilities.
After developing an inventory of natural resource and land use related information,
states would create a comprehensive plan, establishing sanctuaries, in advance of need, for industrial,
conservation and recreational areas.171 As drafted, the National Land Use Policy Act, like NEPA, was
a flexible tool, providing an integrating and cooperative framework for land use decisionmaking. It
encouraged states to think about the future, without mandating results.
But the United States, through its elected representatives, chose another path to
environmental protection: command and control legislation. Although successful in certain respects,
the environmental statutes each focus only on one specific topic: protecting either a discrete segment
of the environment172 or regulating the use of certain products.173 This may be referred to as the "rifle
shot approach" to environmental protection.174
171
Henry M. Jackson, Toward A National Land Use Policy, from "A View
From Capitol Hill," by Senator Henry M. Jackson, a speech at a conference on
Ecology and Politics in America's Environmental Crisis held at the Center of
International Studies, Princeton University, reprinted in Grant McClellan, ed.,
Land Use In the United States, Exploitation or Conservation (1971).
172
For example, see Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.A. 1251 to 1387 (West,
1993); Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 to 7671q (West, 1993); Endangered
Species Act,16 U.S.C.A. 1531 to 1544 (West, 1993).
173
For example see Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, 7

U.S.C.A. 136 to 136y (West, 1993) (regulating the use of pesticides);
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.A. 6901 to 6992k (West,
1993) (regulating the use of hazardous materials); Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C.A.
9601 to 9675 (West, 1993) (imposing liability for clean up of hazardous
waste sites).
174
The phrase "rifle shot approach" was used by Richard Barth, President
and CEO of Ciba, at a seminar on sustainable development, to describe the
single subject approach of environmental regulation in this country. Richard
Barth's Presentation, Transcript of Seminar on the Law of Sustainable
Development In the United States, conducted at Pace University School of
Law, March 2, 1995 (copy on file with the author).
44
The major omission of the environmental legislation, however, is its failure to address the
issue of land use. For the past twenty five years, science has proven that the amount and type of
development on the land in a watershed has a tremendous impact on the viability of that watershed as
an ecosystem. Additionally, increases in air pollution and decreases in open space are directly
attributable to sprawling development patterns. This nation, however, has chosen to ignore the land
use connection.
What has been learned in the past quarter century must guide us into the future. The quiet
revolution in land use has demonstrated that states with enough initiative can create comprehensive
plans that preserve the environment, foster economic growth and encourage social equity. Since the
1970s, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, Florida, Georgia, Oregon, New Jersey, Washington, Rhode Island
and Maryland have engaged in comprehensive land use planning.175 While these programs vary
greatly in their level of "comprehensiveness," as well as in the requirements placed on local
governments, they all are founded on a state plan. Many other states have engaged in comprehensive
regional planning including California, New York, Minnesota, Massachusetts and Michigan, among
others.
In addition, through technological advances in Geographic Information Systems, states are
able to accumulate and process vast quantities of land related information.176 This data can be
175
For a review of the actions in these states during the last twenty five
years, see David Callies, The Quiet Revolution Revisited: A Quarter Century of
Progress, 26 Urb. Law. 197 (1994).
176
Since all data about people, places and things may be referenced
to their geographic locations, relating such information to a common
base is the essential function of a GIS, particularly as it relates to ... land
use planning. GIS is the electronic equivalent of manually overlaying
data transparencies on maps of a municipality or a particular site. With
a GIS, the information is stored digitally in a computer instead of on
manually prepared overlays, that are tedious to develop and static.
45
integrated, through a computer using GIS software, thus enabling local governments, state agencies
and the private sector to create a visual image of the natural and man made conditions of the land.
Through GIS technology, comprehensive land use planning is simpler, more cost efficient and faster
than ever before. Currently, over 90% of all states nationwide are utilizing geographic information
systems.177
Recently, the focus of the world has been turned to an idea expressed by Senator Jackson,
contained in both NEPA and the Land Use Planning Act, "sustainable development." The phrase
recognizes the interrelationship of our natural and social systems and the concept acknowledges the
need to accommodate environmental protection, economic development and social equity. Recent
writings on how to achieve "sustainability" advocate a methodology similar to that expressed by
Senator Jackson in the 1970s. J. William Futrell, a well known environmentalist and author writes:
[T]he transition to a law of sustainable development will best be made by organizing
the reform agenda around human activity. We should reexamine our property rights
principles, the tax code and banking institutions and conduct a sector by sector
revision of the laws governing agriculture, energy, transportation, and manufacturing.
The most important step to establish sustainability ... [is] tailoring law more closely to
the patterns of human behavior. ... It will make better use of the tools of
environmental governance and ease the burden of command and control regulation.178
Twenty five years ago, Senator Jackson challenged the nation to move beyond "the crisis of
Since both the base map and data layers are digitized and referenced to
the same geographical coordinates, they can be integrated
electronically. Thus the preparation, supplementation and updating of
land use plans is rendered much more efficient, cost-effective and useful
than the existing manual systems.
Christine Hilla, GIS and Local Governments: Making the Land Use Connection,
Land Use Law Reporter, Pace University School of Law, Series 3, Number 2,
(November, 1994).
177
Id.
178
J. William Futrell, Law of Sustainable Development, Environmental

Forum, March/April (1994) at 16.
46
the moment" and create sustainable patterns of development. He proposed a tool to achieve that
end, comprehensive land use planning. Jackson understood then what many recognize today:
environmental protection can not be achieved through a policy of "no growth," because this
approach sacrifices needed economic development and social equity. Jackson advocated, instead, an
integrated decisionmaking process wherein the needs of all constituencies could be accommodated. 179
"Resolving these problems for human ends," he wrote "to improve the quality of our life - is, in major
respects, the most challenging task facing the legal profession in the last one-third of the century."
Indeed, that challenge still lies ahead. It is clear that the time has come to seize the vision offered by
Senator Jackson and create a framework for cooperative, coordinated and comprehensive land use
planning.
179
By ignoring the interests of millions of Americans for whom job

security and the prospect of the good life are decent aspirations, [the no
growth advocates] are turning the fight for environmental quality into a
confrontation between the "haves" and the "have nots." The poor
people of this country want good jobs and decent housing. They aspire
to the material goods and comforts enjoyed as a matter of course by
more affluent Americans. ... The solution to the [nation's environmental
ills] is not to halt economic growth or the development of science and
technology, but rather it is to develop responsible programs and policies
to guide their use. Henry M. Jackson, Environmental Policy and the
Congress, 11 Natural Resource Journal 403, 415 (1971).
47

Senator Henry M Jackson and National Land Use Legislation

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Senator Henry M Jackson and National Land Use Legislation

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Federal

Senator Jackson, during the introduction of the National Land Use

use planning and management provides the single most important

John A. Cushman, Proposed Changes Simplify Rules on Pollution Control,

91st Congress - Senate Bill S. 3354

42 U.S.C.A. 4321 to 4370(d) (West, 1993).

CR, supra note 1, at 1757.

S. 3354, 91st Congress, 2d Sess., (hereinafter Senate Bill 3354) at

prepare an inventory of the state's land and related resources;12

collect and analyze information relating to population characteristics, economic trends,

CR, supra note 1, at 1760.

Senate Bill 3354, supra note 7, 402(a).

Id. at 403(b)(2)(A) through (H).

Id. at 403(b)(4), (5), and (6).

That agency must meet certain federal

industrial and commercial development,

CR, supra note 1, at 1760.

Senate Bill 3354, supra note 7, 406(b)(7).

Id. at 404(d). Planning money was primarily provided to states under

Senate Bill 3354, supra note 7, 408(b).

Senate Bill 3354, supra note 7, 406(d).

CR, supra note 1, at 1758.

Background Papers I, supra note 1, at 29.

NEPA established the Council on Environmental Quality, a three-member

Background Papers I, supra note 1, at 29.

designated by the Governor.43

Background Papers I, supra note 1, at 31.

Senate Hearings on S. 3354, supra note 36, at Appendix 1.

resources in the area involved;

Senate Report 3354, supra note 3, 104(c) of S. 3354, as reported out of

Id. at 10, 305(b).

Id. at 10, 305(b)(1)(B).

Id. at 12, 305(e).

Id. at 12, 305(e)(1) through (3).

Id. at 12, 306(a)(3).

Id. at 13, 306(c).

Id. at 14, 310(a).

Id. at 16, 315(a).

Id. at 16, 403.

92d Congress - Senate bills S. 632 and S. 992

S. 632, 92d Congress, 1st Sess. (introduced January 26, 1971).

S. Rep. No. 92-869, 92d Congress, 2d Sess. (1972) at 43.

John C. Whitaker, Striking A Balance, Environmental and Natural

Nixon, in his February 8, 1971 message to Congress on the environment

"[B]ecause of their limited geographic scope, [local governments] ...

American Law Institute, A Model Land Development Code, Tentative

Whitaker, supra note 66, at 156.

"Areas of critical environmental concern" are defined as "areas where

These include any development "for which there is a demonstrable need

Id. at 103(a). The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development was

S. 992, supra note 64, at 104(a).

Id. at 106(a). No definition or explanation was provided, in the

Id. at 107. As late as February 3, 1971, the bill contained a sanctions

Technically, the amendments were not made to S. 992, but rather to

The fundamental difference between the

Train was referring to the requirement contained in the Standard Zoning

governments where regional issues are involved."90

Russell E. Train, Letter to the Editor, Washington Post, December 15,

Senator Henry M. Jackson, Letter to the Editor, Washington Post,

Rogers C.B. Morton, Letter to the Editor, Washington Post, January 4,

The Commerce, Banking and Housing and Urban Affairs Committees

Lyday, supra note 33, at 28.

Stephen Quarles decided to adopt the category approach of the