past three years. In part it is due to the intensified practices of modern-day agriculture.

It is also due in part to the unplanned growth patterns that are affecting the American land base. We are deeply concerned about what is happening to the supply of the country's most productive agricultural lands-the lands that are sometimes referred to as the "prime and unique" agricultural lands. For all these reasons, we in the NACD commend the Congress for its attention to the growing problems of land use-just as we supported the work, nearly 15 years ago, of the Senate Select Committee on Water Resources.

I mention this background to emphasize that in the NACD we support the practice of land use planning. We believe it shoud be fostered and extended. It is especially important in these days of all-out agricultural production, highly erratic expansion of non-farm uses of land, and the even more recent demands for new and expanded sources of energy.

At the same time, we recognize that land planning is a difficult and complex business, because it affects the lives, the personal investments, and the future well-being of millions of Americans and their families.

State governments are beginning to give more attention to land-use commitments for various purposes within their boundaries. A number of states are now considering ways and means of exercising their responsibilities_to end waste and to insure wiser long-range use of their land resources. We encourage this trend. In most states, conservation district leaders are taking an active part in the formulation and debate over the scope and provisions of state land-use legislation.

We recognize that there are substantial variations in land use problems among the states-and in the urgency for dealing with them. We do not believe it would be either wise or practical to seek or expect complete uniformity in state policies and supervision pertaining to land use.

As states undertake greater consideration of their land use policies and problems, we have been urging that provision be made for the maximum practical participation by local jurisdictions, conservation districts, sub-state planning regions, and other variations of multi-county governmental organizations.

We uphold and emphasize America's fundamental regard for the ownership and management of private property, including the rights and responsibilities with such ownership. At the same time, we recognize that not all private and local governmental decisions pertaining to land use have been sound, either in terms of the resources, the economy, or the well-being of the people.

Efforts have been underway for the past several years to enact federal legislation to encourage states-and to provide them with financial incentivesto give more attention to their respective land use policies, problems, and responsibilities. On the whole, these past legislative proposals have been unnecessarily complex and have provided for an excessively large degree of federal direction and intervention in the states' land use affairs.

It is the position of the NACD that federal legislation encouraging the states to give greater attention to their land use policies and problems could be beneficial. We believe that financial incentives for this purpose would be helpful.

At our national convention early in February, the NACD voted to favor federal land use legislation that recognizes:

1. Local concerns and capabilities,

2. Economic as well as environmental values,

3. The importance of agriculture to the present and future well-being of the nation.

4. The rights and responsibilities of private property ownership, and

5. Holds federal intervention in state land use jurisdiction to an absolute minimum.

We also voted to support, in such legislation, provisions which provide for effective collaboration in the management of intermingled and adjoining public and private lands.

Last year when we appeared before this committee we urged a delay in the enactment of the proposed 1974 Land Use Planning Act. We asked for additional hearings in different sections of the country, so that more people would have an opportunity to gain a better understanding of the bill's provisions.

In our opinion, there were some important flaws in the legislation. We felt there was an excessive concentration on environmental considerations at the expense of economic and social considerations. We felt there was an excessive concentration on the federal role in land use-at the expense of state and local capabilities and responsibilities. We felt the bill was grossly inadequate in terms of agriculture, and the food and fiber producing lands of the nation. Further, we felt the bill was excessively long and complicated.

In our judgment, H.R. 3510 in 1975 represents an important improvement over the 1974 bills. It is shorter and less complex. We believe the country has gained by the year's delay.

Let me give a few examples, from our point of view:

Eleven sections of H.R. 3510 recognize in some degree the concerns and capabilities of local people and communities in dealing with land use issues. H.R. 3510 has better balance. There is a reduction in the environmental overload. Nine sections of the 1975 bill recognize the importance of economic as well as environmental values in the approach to land use planning.

The importance of agriculture-and of food and fiber producing landshas properly been elevated as a major factor in land use decision-making. Five sections of the bill recognize this fundamental element of land use. We are especially pleased to see Section 303, which calls for State land use programs that would not only identify privately-owned food and fiber producing lands within the State, but also promote the continued use and productivity of such lands to meet long-range food and fiber requirements.

Four sections of the bill recognize the rights and responsibilities of private property ownership.

In Section 101(e) and in Section 509 (a) and (b) there is language designed to limit the authority of the federal government, under this Act, to intrude on State land use authorities.

Four sections of the bill should serve to promote better collaboration in the improved management of public and private lands.

In summary there are a considerable number of provisions in H.R. 3510 that respond to our criticism of last year's legislation, and that meet the criteria of conservation districts leaders as basic elements in new federal land use legislation. Notwithstanding the improvements I have referred to, there are some additional changes and amendments we believe would contribute a great deal to the purposes of the legislation, including the development and operations of state and local land use programs in the nation.

1. We seriously question the wisdom of assigning to the Department of the Interior the administration of the provisions of the Land Use and Resources Act.

This department has a history of public land management. Compared to several other agencies, it has a minimum of experience in working with private landowners and private land issues.

Leaders in many of our member districts believe that the Department of Agriculture, with its long and successful record of working with private landowners, would be a much better administering agency. We would strongly support such an assignment.

As an alternative, and in recognition of the highly competitive views of some of the federal agencies regarding the land use program, we would urge the committee to give serious consideration to the establishment of a new Land Resources Board or Council as the administering agency.

Such a Board, as we see it, could be relatively small, be responsible directly to the President or to the Domestic Council, and have the essential qualities of independence and freedom from inter-Departmental rivalries. Members might be appointed by the President to represent federal, state, and local government interests, as well as the interests of the public at large, from a roster of men and women having experience and expertise in land use affairs. 2. We strongly urge the inclusion of representatives of soil conservation districts as members of the advisory council (called for in Section 201(a)(2) to work with the State land use planning agency in each State.

The present language in Section 201 (a) (2) provides for the inclusion of "representatives of agricultural districts, including soil conservation districts where applicable."

In view of the fact that conservation districts are local subdivisions of state government, with special responsibilities for annual and long-range pro

grams of soil and water conservation (and related resources) within their boundaries, they have unique qualifications to contribute in a significant way to the functioning of a state advisory council on land use planning. Officials of these districts have a long record of successful experience and expertise in land use affairs. They are familiar, as a part of their regular duties, with the land use interests and responsibilities of general purpose local governments and also those of state and federal agencies engaged in programs affecting land use.

We can think of no instance where the inclusion of representatives of soil conservation districts on state land use advisory councils would not be "applicable."

The nation's 3,000 conservation districts include over 2.2 billion acres and included within their boundaries some 2,700,000 farms and ranches-amounting to 99 percent of the farms and ranches of the United States. The 2,300,000 district cooperators own or operate 778,000,000 acres.

Last year nearly 30,000 units of state and local government received assistance from conservation districts. Districts in urban and developing areas provide soil surveys, water inventories, assistance with waste disposal and other services to planning commissions, municipal officials, schools, hospitals, industries, contractors, and others.

There are 1,690 watershed protection and flood prevention projects under way, sponsored by districts. More than 1,110 are in the operations stage. Districts are also working on 158 authorized regional Resource Conservation and Development projects to promote wise resource management based on economic and environmental considerations, in local communities.

3. We believe the provisions of H.R. 3510 calling for the collection, study, and analysis of basic resource data, and the maintenance of land use information centers, should be more specific in avoiding duplication or overlapping with existing authorities and programs.

Sections 201(c), 302(a), and 310(a) call for inventories and collection of pertinent data. Section 501(c)(2) calls for "a continuing study and analysis of the land resources of the United States and their use." while Section (501) (c) (5) would require the development and maintenance of "a Federal land use information center, with such regional branches as the Secretary may deem appropriate, compiling such information pertaining to land use as the Secretary deems appropriate and useful;"

There are no references in the bill to the most basic of all the continuing land surveys being carried out in the country-the National Cooperative Soil Survey. It is now 75 years old and has mapped about one and a quarter billion acres in detailed soil surveys, reconnaissance soil surveys, and exploratory soil surveys. That is 55 percent of the United States. The soil survey was authorized by Chapter 169 of the Agriculture Appropriation Act of 1896 and subsequent acts.

In addition, there are no references to the Land Inventory and Monitoring program of the Department of Agriculture authorized by Title III, Section 302, or the Rural Development Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-419); or references to the renewable resource assessment to be conducted by the U.S. Forest Service and cooperating agencies under Section 2 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Plonning Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-378).

In our opinion, Section 310(a), in particular, should include soils as an essential element in the data base to be developed as part of the State program.

4. We believe that Section 402 (b) pertaining to certain licensing, is excessively long, complicated, and confusing. We urge that an effort be made to shorten and clarify this section.

5. We believe that the planning and regulatory language in Section 403 (b) is improperly broad. This section calls for providing State and local governments with data from the inventory "for the purpose of planning and regulating the uses of non-Federal lands in proximity to the public lands.”

We urge that the quoted language be amended as follows: "for the purpose of planning and regulating the use of areas of critical State concern in proximity to the public lands.

6. We believe that Section 505, calling for a biennial report by the Secretary, calls for excessively difficult evaluations and assessments in some places. We recommend that Section 505 be amended as follows:

"Sec. 505. The Secretary shall report biennially to the President and the Congress on land resources, uses of land, and current emerging problems of land use. Such report shall include the Secretary's evaluation of progress, State by State, in carrying out the policies of this Act. The report also shall include a summary of public involvement and participation by officials or representatives of local governments in all aspects of State and Federal activities pursuant to this Act."

7. We recommend that Section 506(b) be amended to read: "After the end of the third fiscal year occurring immediately after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall review the programs established as a consequence of this Act and shall. . . ."

S. We believe that Section 501 (c) (6) would give the Secretary an excessive grant of power, and one probably not intended by the authors of the bill. We recommend an appropriate amendment. No single Secretary should have the authority to coordinate all the Federal land use planning assistance programs to States, local governments, and other public entities,-as 501 (c) (6) now states.

I thank you for the opportunity to present our views on this important legislation.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

Mr. Steelman?

Mr. STEELMAN. Mr. Bagley, I don't have any questions but I want to express my welcome to you. I have lived in Arkansas and spent a lot of time in Louisiana and Texas. It is good to have you with us.

I regret we have been cut short of time because of the quorum call. I do appreciate the specific recommendations you have made. When we get ready to mark up the bill sometime in April, I will keep your statement and will use it at that time as a reference point.

If you could also ask some of your staff people here to stay in touch with us, so when the mark-up time begins, we will be able to obtain your assistance.

Mr. BAGLEY. We will be happy to do that. In any way we can help you, we will be pleased to do so.

Mr. STEELMAN. We thank you for making your trip all the way up here to express your views.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Bingham?

Mr. BINGHAM. I have no questions. I would like to thank the witness for his statement.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Bagley.

The committee will recess to answer the quorum call and we will come back at 1:30 for the purposes of continuing to take testimony at that time.

(Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m., the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. STEELMAN (presiding). The Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment will reconvene for the purpose of taking additional testimony this afternoon.

Our first witness is the Assistant Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Mr. Robert Knecht. Is Mr. Knecht with us?

Mr. Knecht, we are pleased to have you with us. In the interest of time, since we do have a number of witnesses, if it is possible

we would appreciate a summary of your official text. Without objection, we will submit for the record a full copy.

Mr. KNECHT. Mr. Chairman, my text is only about five pages. It is quite short, and I think that I can convey the contents to you most expeditiously by reading the text, if you would not mind. I can do it quite quickly, and I think it will present a more coherent description of the main points I would like to convey to the Committee.

Mr. STEELMAN. All right.

Mr. KNECHT. I have with me on my left Mr. William Brewer, general counsel of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration this afternoon.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. KNECHT, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM BREWER, GENERAL COUNSEL

Mr. KNECHT. It is a pleasure to appear before this meeting of your committee to discuss the proposed legislation, H.R. 3510, the Land Use and Resource Conservation Act of 1975.

In view of the fact that the Secretary of the Interior has stated the administration's position on this bill, I would like to review some of the progress being made on implementation of the coastal zone management program; a closely related program to which the Secretary referred in his statement.

The Coastal Zone Management Act, passed by Congress and signed into law in 1972, is designed to "encourage the States to exercise their full authority" in developing coastal zone management programs while providing Federal assistance to accomplish this task. Federal grants under our program are divided into two parts: first, section 305 of the Coastal Zone Management Act authorizes grants to coastal States to assist in the development of coastal zone management programs. Upon approval by the Secretary of Commerce, a State is eligible as provided in section 306 of the act, to receive administrative grants to carry out its management programs within that portion of the State lying within its coastal zone. The coastal zone as defined by the State need not necessarily cover the entire area of the State.

There are four key features of the Coastal Zone Management Act which, to some degree, parallel the discussions which have occurred in this committee with reference to the proposed legislation.

First, the Coastal Zone Management Act authorizes a Federally supported grant assistance program for comprehensive planning and management in which State participation is voluntary. No coastal State is mandated to develop and administer coastal zone management programs and there are no Federal sanctions imposed on those States which choose not to participate. Also, our development and management grants require a one-third match by the States-thus imposing a financial as well as programmatic commitment on those States which voluntarily choose to develop coastal zone management programs.