The development of land use plans involving state and private forest and watershed lands must include the opportunity for State Forester participation in plan development. The development of plans for federal land ownership should include state and local participation when the effects of such planning will result in impacts on state and private lands.

Land use planning must enlist public support through citizen involvement. Such participation can be obtained at a local level of government. Therefore, counties and similar general purpose governments should be encouraged to assume active roles in land use planning.

ADOPTED: Feb. 11, 1975

STATEMENT OF Carl E. Bagge, President, NATIONAL COAL ASSOCIATION

My name is Carl E. Bagge. I am president of the National Coal Association, which represents the producers and sales agencies of most of the commercially mined bituminous coal in the United States.

Federal land use legislation has been under active consideration by Congress for the last 4 years or more. NCA testified on the proposals which were pending in both the 92nd and 93rd sessions of Congress. Four years ago there was a growing awareness of the need for the states to take the initiative to improve their land use planning and decision making. Even though some of the goals of the pending bills had merit, the coal industry did not endorse the legislation because the bills failed to provide a realistic framework for effective land use planning. The bills did not give adequate recognition to the fact that coal is a non-renewable resource and coal lands must be considered in terms of their multiple benefits to mankind; they did not strike a realistic balance between needs and environmental protection; and they established federal control over the states on major environmental issues. H.R. 3510 is not a significant improvement and the coal industry is opposed to its enactment. Furthermore, in the intervening years most of the states have on their own taken the initiative in developing and implementing land use planning programs. The bills concern non-federal lands within the states and the states should have the dominant role in this area without federal intervention. In view of these developments, there is no longer an imperative need for federal legislation directing the states to develop land use planning programs.

In virtually all areas of our society, conflicting demands are today placing severe strains upon our economic, social and political institutions and processes. Land use and environmental goals are but another outcropping of this pervasive national phenomenon. In view of these legitimate but competing interests, great care must be exercised in establishing land use policies in order to strike a realistic balance between the environment and the needs of our citizens or the outlook for energy through the latter part of this century could be catastrophic for the nation.

Ninety-five percent of our nation's energy comes from the land and coal alone constitutes over seventy five percent of our known reserves of energy from that land. It is difficult to appraise the precise impact that the pending land use bill will have upon the exploration, development and production of our nation's vast coal reserves. It is our view, however, that in several basic respects the proposed legislation is so totally deficient that unless substantially revised, the structure of our economy and its ability to produce the essential goods and services to meet the growing requirements of all our citizens could be seriously impaired. This is especially true with respect to the development of our national coal reserves and our other domestic fuel

resources.

A fundamental concern of considerable significance is that the proposed land use legislation simply does not give sufficient consideration to the fact that coal, as well as other minerals, are uniquely different from other natural resources such as forest and agricultural products. New trees and crops are renewable assets which can be grown in many different areas. Land use planning for agricultural, recreational, residential, commercial and industrial purposes can take advantage of innumerable sites depending upon the specific criteria established. However, nature in its infinite wisdom has already done all the comprehensive planning that can be accomplished since

man cannot grow minerals in the earth. Coal must be mined where it can be found. In view of the importance of coal to our energy-oriented economy -especially with the limited reserves of our other hydrocarbon fuels and with coal's newly-emerging role as a feedstock for not only the nation's gas but for the oil industry-any rational land policy must recognize as a priority land use the necessity to permit the full development of our coal reserves, as well as our other nonrenewable natural resources.

Additionally, it seems clear that the bill fails to give adequate recognition of the fact that mineral extractive operations are only a temporary use of the land and, thus, mineral lands must be categorized and considered in terms of their multiple benefits to mankind. Inherent in this multiple use concept is the assumption that we can no longer disqualify the use of land for different purposes at different times. Therefore, land well-suited to supply premium coal close to a major urban market for a period of years could, after that time, be classified as the best suited for low density residential use, open space or industrial use. This is particularly true in view of what can be done today through sound, effective reclamation of surface mined

areas.

It is equally vital in land use planning to take into account the fact that most of our mineral resources lie hidden beneath the earth's surface and only a very small percentage of these reserves have been adequately explored so as to be clearly identifiable. With the exception of known deposits, it is extremely difficult, if not totally impossible, to determine which lands are best suited for mineral use as presently required by the proposed legislation. Even though the bill requires an inventory of our proposed natural resources, it fails to insure that as much land as possible remain open for exploration even though these lands are classified for another use which would in no way prohibit the subsequent development of newly discovered reserves, if and when they are required.

No land area should be zoned, withdrawn or otherwise removed from prospecting or exploration unless an exhaustive geological analysis of its mineral potential has been made to determine that no possibility exists for development of energy resources. Such a finding should be continually reevaluated in view of advances in technology and changes in economic conditions.

Congress, in the last 30 years, has enacted nearly 100 federal statutes which establish programs that affect and influence land use planning and decisions on non-federal land use. I understand that a list of these statutes was compiled by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress and have been submitted as part of the record in these proceedings. The listing does not include the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972-both of which have and will continue to have a tremendous restrictive effect upon land use. In addition, Congress expanded HUD's land use planning authority over non-federal lands with legislation and subsequent regulations which closely track the approach incorporated in H.R. 3510. EPA has announced its intention to initiate a land use planning program for non-federal lands. Before enacting an additional statute imposing land use controls on non-federal lands, an effort should be made to bring some order and understanding to the many overlapping, confusing and often inconsistent land use restrictions in existing federal statutes, rules and regulations.

H.R. 3510 contains many vague, undefined and imprecise terms which will create unwarranted uncertainty and bring about costly and time consuming litigation. Such terms as "significant natural hazard areas"; "esthetic and ecological value of wetlands for wildlife habitat"; "rare or valuable ecosystems"; and "significant wildlife and fragile areas" involve value judgements which are impossible to quantify. The definition in Section 103 (a), for example, is so broad that it could apply to any lands in the United States. Section 404 requires each public land management agency to designate and protect "significant resource areas". This term is undefined but obviously could be interpreted to include the vast federal coal reserves in the west or the national forests. Argument could be made that these resources must be protected.

Although the bill allegedly does not provide for federal review of state land use decisions, there are numerous provisions in the bill which would

permit and encourage the federal government to exert control over matters which are and should remain with the states. To maintain eligibility for federal funds, the Secretary would review the local and state land use programs to insure that they are complying with requirements set out in several sections of the bill (particularly Sections 302; 310; 501 and 508). This review authority as a prerequisite to further federal funding is a significant device for continuing federal control. It does appear that an effort was made to more clearly circumscribe federal control but with the states now taking the initiative in developing land use planning programs we do not believe federal intervention is required.

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the coal industry.

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CONSULTING PLANNERS, BY PROF. GEORGE M. RAYMOND, AIP, AIA, CHAIRMAN OF A.S.C.P. LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, PRESIDENT, RAYMOND, PARISH & PINE, INC.

1. The key concept in the achievement of a rational land use pattern through the application of a locally focused land use policy is the designation not only of lands reserved for environmental preservation or protection but also of lands intended for development or where it is determined in advance that development would not have any significantly deleterious environmental consequences. If such a concept were to be made a part of every statewide land use policy, then it would be possible to approach the regulation of development differently, depending upon whether it occurs in environmentally critical areas or in areas where there is no fundamental objection thereto on environmental grounds. The same concept might be applied in the case of development defined as of regional benefit, since any negative environmental consequences of a proposal which contributes to the welfare of a broad region should be evaluated on the basis of different criteria from those which might be routinely applied to a purely for-profit, speculative project.

It is axiomatic that all development will have some environmental impact. Nevertheless, the tendency is growing for people and local governments to work on the assumption that existing conditions, whatever they may be, may not be degraded. This invariably leads to the conclusion that the status quo may not be disturbed, that any additional development is undesirable, and that increased population, per se, will have the environmentally deleterious effect of attracting more industrial and residential development necessitating more highways, etc.

Local resistance to growth needs no support from the federal governmentit is doing fine on its own. The Gallup Poll recently showed that, nationwide, people in communities of all sizes prefer, by margins of between 3:1 and 4:1, housing growth in the form of single-family homes. It is therefore crucial that any Federal Land Use Bill, combined with all other federal environmental statutes, not serve to strengthen exclusionary land use policies at the local level. The requirement in H.R. 3510 that the States "consider" housing, commercial and industrial needs in developing their policies does not go far enough in establishing the federal interest in assuring that these essential needs will be properly provided for.

Full implementation of the concept advocated herein would require amendment of the National Environmental Policy Act so as to reverse the emphasis of the required environmental impact statement in areas intended for development or triggered by developments of regional benefit. After identifying all possible negative environmental impacts of such developments, the required statement should have to show how any environmental considerations which may be invoked in opposition thereto are not adversely affecting a given jurisdiction's ability to satisfy legitimate social and economic objectives.

2. There is no recognition in H.R. 3510 of the fact that a rational land use pattern cannot be achieved by strictly negative measures. We have learned the truth of this through 50 years of experience with zoning. What is necessary is for a land use decision-making agency to have authority to shape development on a regional scale so as to relate population densities and intensities of use to public investments in transportation and major utilities systems. It is well known that an area must achieve a certain critical mass

of intensity of use in order to economically justify the provision of a public transportation system. Yet there is nothing in the bill which would require. for instance, that states assume the authority to override local zoning ordinances which prohibit all but large single-family lots in the vicinity of a federally-aided multi-million dollar highway interchange or along a multi-million dollar land access highway built with federal funds. If intensive development fails to occur in the vicinity of a highway interchange, it tends to scatter in all directions, and thereby precludes the establishment of an economically feasible public transportation service.

This type of channeling of development into areas where it belongs would reduce the pressure for development in areas where it does not. It would also be an energy-effective way of distributing development, and would assure the provision of a wide choice of residential accommodations throughout every region, with higher density residential development located where it can be served by public transportation. For these reasons, every state should be required to assume the authority necessary to assure that local governments will not preclude commercial, industrial, and high density residential uses in the vicinity of major public land service investments. This could be best accomplished by giving states the authority to establish a land use intensity "floor" in areas served by key facilities which represent major public investments.

For purposes of application of this concept the bill, or its legislative history, should make clear that the term key facilities includes federally aided land service highways and rapid transit stations.

3. The administration of a national land use policy should perhaps not be placed in a single department which is likely to be single-mission oriented. The Department of the Interior's traditions and expertise lie in the area of natural resource and public lands management. We believe that it would be a mistake to entrust the Interior Secretary with the responsibility of supervising land use policies and programs in the heart of metropolitan areas. All projections seem to indicate that most of the next 50 or 60 million population increment in this country between now and the year 2000 will gravitate toward existing metropolitan areas. In the absence of a national urban growth policy which would include a feasible method of redistributing population on a large scale into presently undeveloped areas, it would be dangerous to foster a national land use policy which would place insuperable barriers to population growth within metropolitan areas or on their fringes. To help overcome this problem, the administration of the act should be divided. The Department of Housing and Urban Development should be entrusted with responsibility for supervising state land use programs (1) within all Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas; (2) within one-half mile of cities with a population of ten thousand or more outside such areas; and (3) within, and within one-half mile of, the boundaries of lands for which a New Community application under Title VII of the Housing Act of 1970 has been approved. The Department of Interior could then be entrusted with responsibility for administering the act throughout the rest of the country. A system should be capable of being devised for close coordination between the two departments. In any event, if administration of the Act will be lodged entirely in the Department of the Interior as now contemplated in H.R. 3510, approval by the Secretary of HUD of a state land use program should be a prerequisite to federal approval thereof.

It is realized that there is already on the books a Coastal Zone Management Act and that this recommendation might seem to encourage further frag mentation of authority in the land use planning field. The threat of such fragmentation is more theoretical than real, however: in all states, following enactment of a federal land use planning act, the agency designated to develop and implement a land use policy would undoubtedly be the same as that entrusted with coastal zone management and "701" comprehensive planning responsibilities.

4. So long as municipalities continue to depend upon the property tax for most of their financial resources, and allowing for the possibility that a state-guided land use problem might cause a substantial proportion of all developable land of a locality to be barred to tax producing development on environmental grounds, the granting to the state of responsibility for land use decision-making is very likely to be resisted on purely fiscal grounds.

Payments in lieu of taxes are not an acceptable substitute. The solution must include a thorough tax reform which would markedly reduce local dependence on the property tax or eliminate it all together. While, admittedly, a land use planning act cannot be also made into a tax reform act, nevertheless it might be appropriate for this bill to incorporate major incentives for states which do enact tax reform. The act might even specify the level of tax reform desired for instance, to the point where the locality, including its school districts, will derive not more than, say, 25% of all required revenues from local property taxes.

It is only fair to point out that a significant reduction or elimination of local reliance on the property tax may swing the pendulum from the present condition under which municipalities fight among themselves to attract major nonresidential developments in order to reap the corollary tax benefits. to a condition under which they will resist such developments with equal vehemence. If it will make no difference to their tax base, they may well oppose any development which, by reason of its size and intensity, would have negative environmental consequences: major office buildings attract traffic; apartment development means concentration of people, etc. The assumption by the States of the authority to establish development intensity "floor" levels would thus become a crucially important component of their ability to encourage the emergence of a rational land use pattern.

5. The emphasis in Section 304 (b) (4) on the ability of local governments to supply municipal and other public services for a proposed development gives a uniquely useful handle whereby exclusionary-minded local governments can turn down most major projects. If this provision remains in the bill, it would be appropriate that it require localities to develop local plans showing not only existing, but also proposed utilities and public facilities required to service development of all land in accordance with the zoning pattern enacted by them pursuant to such state guidelines as may be developed as part of the State's federally approved land use program.

The theory under which development in this country can take place at all is that a locality determines in advance appropriate patterns and intensities of development and assumes thereby the responsibility (with such state or federal aid as may be available) of providing all the necessary facilities and services. If the unavailability of facilities or services in advance of development can be cited as a reason for turning down a proposal, then, clearly, no development of any consequence will be possible. One has yet to encounter a community which has built excess school capacity in advance of need, or has widened roads before traffic congestion has made it necessary. In the case of schools, in many states school districts can only expend capital funds subject to a public referendum. It is difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of any electorate being ready to tax itself to provide facilities for development which has not yet occurred and services to people who are not yet voting members of the community.

It is for this reason that we believe that all local plans should be required to show in advance the facilities that are intended to be provided to serve the ultimate level of development permitted in the plan, leaving the actual provision of the facilities to the political process. Since all private development pays taxes, the provision of facilities by means of borrowing, with the bonds to be amortized from the proceeds of the increased tax payments produced by the very development which required the expenditure in the first place, is an entirely legitimate method. In most widely publicized instances of existing facilities being swamped by new developments it is a lack of political will rather than of means or authority that prevents local governments from making proper provision therefor.

6. Section 105 (f) in H.R. 16028, the predecessor version of H.R. 3510, required that the states' comprehensive land use planning process prevent unreasonable restriction or exclusion of development and land uses of regional benefit. This language has disappeared altogether in the current bill. Not only do we believe that it should be restored, but feel that additional provisions should guarantee that housing, and especially publicly assisted housing, will not be discriminated against. The term "development of regional benefit" should be defined along the lines of the definition proposed in Section 7-301 of the Official Draft No. 1 of the Model Land Development Code of the American Law Institute, as follows: (a) development by a government

52-052-75- -36