X hits on this document

102 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

35 / 51

policies.  Third, interstate inefficiencies could result from the divergent land use policies of the states.122

Several arguments were made against the legislation containing any national guidelines.  First, the diversity of the United States prohibits the issuance of any meaningful, uniform guidelines.  What might be appropriate for an urbanized eastern state may be completely inappropriate for a rural western state.  Additionally, the objectives of the national land use legislation, namely the achievement of certain social, environmental and economic goals were contained in several other federal statutes, and therefore, as S. 268 did not repeal these laws, the national interests were already protected.  Finally, there was no semblance of consensus regarding what the substance of national guidelines should be.123

The Committee, in response to these arguments, adopted an amendment to S. 268 providing for a three year study by CEQ, with participation by the Interagency Advisory Board on Land Use Policy,124 the states and local governments.  The study was to determine the need for and appropriate substance of national guidelines.125  A report was to be submitted, at the end of three years from the date of enactment, at which time Congress would determine what, if any, national

    (Senate Report S. 628, supra note 116, at 48.

    (Id. at 49.

    (Formerly referred to, in S. 632, as the National Advisory Board on Land Use, the Interagency Advisory Board on Land Use Policy was to contain essentially the same members and have the same duties as the National Advisory Board on Land Use.  S. 268, as reported, June 7, 1973, at § 304, reprinted in Senate Report S. 268, supra note 116, at 1-34 (hereinafter S. 268 as reported).

    (S. 268, as reported, supra note 124, at §307.

1

Document info
Document views102
Page views102
Page last viewedSun Dec 04 02:16:07 UTC 2016
Pages51
Paragraphs427
Words14637

Comments