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
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
(Id. at 25.
(Rogers C.B. Morton, Letter to the Editor, Washington Post, January 4, 1972, reprinted in Background Papers I, supra note 1, at 25 - 27.
(Id. at 27.