36

1 (d) Considering, among other factors, the degree of 2 responsibility assumed, a State may allocate a portion of 3 its grants funds to a participating unit of government when a State utilizes

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

(1) a local government for planning and review purposes associated with the development or amendment of State land use policies, standards, and criteria,

(2) general purpose local governments for implementation under section 204, or

(3) an interstate agency under section 206 in developing or implementing its land use program.

(e) No funds granted pursuant to this Act may be ex13 pended for the acquisition of any interest in real property.

14

15

FINANCIAL RECORDS

SEC. 508. (a) Each recipient of a grant under this Act

16 shall

(1) make reports and evaluations in such form, at such times, and containing such information concerning the status, disposition, and application of Federal funds and the development and administration of a comprehensive land use planning process as the Secretary may require, and

(2) make available such records as may be required by the Secretary for the verification of such reports and evaluations.

37

1 (b) For purposes of examination and audit, the Secre2 tary and the Comptroller General of the United States, or 3 any of their duly authorized representatives, shall have access

4

5

to any books, documents, papers, and records of the recipient

of a grant that are pertinent to the determination that funds

6 granted are used in accordance with this Act.

EFFECT ON EXISTING AUTHORITY

SEC. 509. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to

(a) permit a Federal agency to intercede in management or regulatory decisions within the framework of a State land use program;

(b) authorize or permit the Secretary to manage or regulate non-Federal lands, through the issuance, ap

proval, or disapproval of substantive State land use policies, standards or criteria, or as a condition of eligibility for grants under this Act;

(c) enlarge or decrease the authority of a State to control the use of any land owned by the Federal Government within the State, or of any land located outside the State;

(d) enhance or diminish the rights of owners of property as provided by the Constitution of the United

States and the constitution and laws.of the State in which

23

24

the property is located;

1

2

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

(e) require or encourage States to intercede in land

use decisions of purely local concern;

(f) prevent a State land use planning agency from adopting a land use program that uses methods other

than zoning for any area under its jurisdiction, and the use of such methods shall not in themselves prevent ap

proval for such purposes of eligibility for a grant by the Secretary;

(g) change or otherwise affect the authority or responsibility of any Federal official in the discharge of the duties of his office except as required to carry out the provisions of this Act;

(h) affect the jurisdiction, powers, or prerogatives of the International Joint Commission, United States and Canada, the Permanent Engineering Board, and the United States operating entity or entities established

pursuant to the Columbia River Basin Treaty signed at
Washington, January 17, 1961, or the International
Boundary and Water Commission, United States and
Mexico; or,

(i) supersede, repeal, or be in derogation of, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.

23 1451 and following) or allow the Secretary to inter

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Secretary, you may proceed with your statement. STATEMENT OF HON. ROGERS C. B. MORTON, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY LANCE MARSTON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF LAND USE AND WATER PLANNING, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Secretary MORTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss land use legislation which has been a subject of personal interest to me since I first introduced legislation along these lines in 1964. As you know, this legislation has been the subject of discussion within the administration for several months. While many believe there is a general need for legislation of this type to complement the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, there are presently overriding economic and budget problems which have forced us to reconsider our earlier support for this legislation.

The President's budget for fiscal year 1976 concedes a deficit of $52 billion. This is one of the most severe deficits in our Nation's history. Its impact is of concern to all of us. Moreover, there are proposals in the Congress today which could cause this deficit to be even greater. The economy and energy are the two most crucial issues facing our Nation today. We must commit our available resources to meeting these enormous challenges.

We must stimulate economic revival, put more Americans back to work and proceed with a program to develop our domestic energy resources and reduce our reliance on foreign energy suppliers. Consequently, we oppose the enactment of land use management assistance legislation at this time. This is in accordance with the President's already announced moratorium on new Federal spending programs which is also affecting other initiatives.

The need to properly manage the use, conservation and development of America's land resources is evident to all. Land management institutions and procedures at the State levels need to be strengthened to better resolve major lane use issues impacting more than one governmental jurisdiction and to implement the resulting decisions through the exercise of existing State and local authority.

As with many other public issues, the States have already pointed the direction towards which this Nation should be going. Approximately 10 States have adopted statewide legislation covering major land resource issues. Others are starting to focus on specific problems or are studying proposals for dealing with major social, economic, and environmental demands on land resources. Florida, Maine, Oregon, Vermont, Colorado, Hawaii, and most recently Wyoming, have taken the first step in this direction.

Since we recommend postponement of action on new land use legislation, we believe that we now have a special obligation to find ways under existing authority to encourage the States to take the needed initiative by, among other things, better using the resources of the Federal Government. I have, therefore, directed the Department's Office of Land Use and Water Planning to develop a series

of recommendations over the next 2 months for the administration's

consideration.

The Federal Government already administers many programs which have a direct, and sometimes adverse, impact on the use of land resources and the regulatory decisions made by State and local governments. Federal highway, airport and other public works projects have all played a major role in determining the location and extent of land development. The administration firmly supports efforts which would return to the States a measure of control over the impact of these and other Federal projects and actions within a well coordinated land resource management system.

This question has been the subject of recent meetings with the President. The President believes that methods should be established to bring order out of these existing Federal programs. The President has urged me, as Chairman of the Domestic Council Committee on Land Use, to work with other Cabinet officers to find better ways to insure that Federal actions are more compatible with land resource management at State and local levels of government. As you know, the administration has introduced an energy facilities siting bill. This is consistent with our view that any new spending programs of this sort should be directly related to our effort in the development of energy self-sufliciency. Nevertheless, any land use decisionmaking impacts a broad spectrum of uses and resources. The implementation of energy facilities siting legislation should be closely coordinated with existing State land use programs and coastal zone management programs to be truly effective.

Despite the limitation we presently face. American needs to forge a new land ethic which recognizes the stewardship responsibility of all segments of society. To support this principle, the role of the States to cope with major land resource issues must be strengthened. Failure by the States to take this initiative may well result in further encroachment by the Federal Government.

Mr. Chairman, I just would add that of course you know my personal interest in land use planning and the personal view that I have. We can no longer let this Nation grow like "Topsy." I am encouraged to look on the bright side of the actions that the States have taken and by the general recognition that the public is beginning to show for the needs of better land resource management.

On the discouraging side, I am unaware of the tremendous financial burden that the Government has been put under by the economic conditions that have developed, first through the inflationary impact, and secondly, through a recessionary impact that we are faced with. And I have to be a good soldier and recognize that and, therefore, join in an effort to postpone something that I very much believe in. But I do act with the full understanding that if we are careful, we can increase our budget deficit to the point where we can really be in deep trouble in this country. And some of the things we would like to do, therefore, should be postponed. And I concur in that as far as new spending programs are concerned.

If there is a way that we can establish this landuse ethic and motivate the states to institutionalize themselves without any substantial amount of money, or any large Federal appropriation of any kind, I certainly would like to take a look at that and, if I thought it was