sanctions extended the federal role in land use control into land use decisionmaking. After considering all the arguments, the Committee decided against including the sanctions provision contained in the Administration bill and S. 632, as introduced. Instead, the only funds to be withheld for noncompliance with the Act were the planning monies allocated under S. 268.131
Another principal issue raised in the hearings concerned funding: the amount of money that would be appropriated for the act and how it would be allocated to the states. Senator Jackson supported reinstating the funding level as originally provided in S. 632, namely $100 million annually for eight years, calling the Administration's recommendation of $20 million "woefully inadequate."132 With the sole exception of the Administration, all witnesses were unanimous in the opinion that the higher funding level was necessary. The Committee adopted an amendment increasing the funding to $100 million per year for eight years133 and reinstating the original Jackson levels of allocation. Grants would cover 90% of the state's costs for the first five years and two-thirds thereafter.134
Concerns were raised regarding protection of the rights of property owners. Senators Jordan and Hansen had proposed an amendment to S. 632 during the Senate floor debate that required compensation be paid to landowners whose property values were diminished as a result of
(Senate Report S. 268, supra note 116, at 41.
(Background Papers II, supra note 64, at 86.
(S. 268, as reported, supra note 124, at §608.
(Id. at §606.