X hits on this document





31 / 51

maximum of 21% at the end of three years, eight years after enactment of the bill.104  The Interior Department estimated that states were receiving $1,756,775,000 under these three programs.  Seven percent of that amount would equal $123,007,000.105 However, as opposed to allowing these monies to be made available to the eligible states, any money retained would be held by the Treasury until the state complied with the requirements of the land use program.  At that time, all monies previously withheld were to be returned to the state.106

Appropriations were set at $100 million annually for eight years, with an additional $10 million annually, over five years, for administration.107  Funding allotments to states were set at 90% for five years, reduced to two-thirds thereafter.  These amounts were set in accordance with the provisions contained in the Jackson bills; the Administration had advocated for only $20 million over five years, with grants not exceeding 50% of state costs.108

Debate and Amendment of S. 632

Senator Jackson, during the Senate floor debate on S. 632, stated that the measure "contained the best features of [his] previous land use bill, the Administration's proposal ...

    (Id. at  §307(d).  These sanctions were stronger than those contained in the Jackson bills for federal highway funds were not subject to reduction under S. 3354 or S. 632 as introduced.  According to the Senate Report, these three programs were chosen for withholding of funds as they were deemed to have the most significant long range and irreversible impacts upon land use patterns because of the exceptional influence they have on development.

    (Noone, supra note 97, at 1193.

    (Senate Report 632, supra note 98, at §307(d).

    (Id. at  §510.

    (See footnote 80, supra, and accompanying text.  


Document info
Document views153
Page views153
Page last viewedTue Jan 17 23:34:07 UTC 2017