(8 of 9)
Drafted by Washington Democratic Senator Henry M. Jackson, chairman of the powerful Interior Committee, and passed in the Senate by a 64-21 vote last June, the National Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance Act does not fix policy at all. Instead, it provides $1.1 billion over eight years to help states devise a process of planning and "methods of implementation" for their plans. The states would have to pay special attention to: 1) areas of critical environmental concern, notably shore lines, floodplains, wildlife habitats; 2) areas affected by key facilities that induce growth, notably highways, airports, power plants; 3) large-scale private developments; and 4) land bordering new towns. An amendment wisely calls for state regulation of recreational-land sales to ensure that new projects will not cause environmental troubles and that developers are financially capable of carrying out their proposals.
In its present form, the Jackson bill also starts to put the Federal Government's own houses in order. Right now, some 122 separate federal programs that affect land use remain to be coordinated. It is not unusual for one agency, dealing with highways, say, to clash with another dealing with air quality.
The bill requires Washington to coordinate its programs with state plans. How much that provision will affect public lands —the Federal Government owns one-third of U.S. land and still makes piecemeal decisions as to its use—remains to be seen.
The most controversial question before the House, however, is whether to penalize the states that refuse to develop plans or put them into effect. If Jackson had his way, the Government each year would withhold from recalcitrant states an increasing percentage of their annual federal funds for highways, airports and land-and water-conservation programs. The Senate did not include those penalties in its bill, and the House's decision on them is much in doubt. To proponents, including the Administration, the penalties are absolutely necessary to prod the states to action. To opponents, the penalties represent an unnecessary "gun at the Governor's head."
The penalties should be enacted if for no other reason than that most states are traditionally reluctant to accept planning. Tough minimum standards should also be written into the act. At present the bill rather generously assumes that the states can produce good plans.
Many other new approaches are needed. Among them:
REGIONAL-PLANNING authorities should be encouraged wherever possible. These can treat whole watersheds or air basins and thus cope with environmental questions too large for local governments. They also are needed around cities, where growth is often the concern of several counties. One model:
the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council in Minnesota, which plans development for nine counties and has veto power over growth-inducing facilities—including projects like airports and sewers.