X hits on this document





41 / 51

lands under their jurisdiction in an attempt to achieve maximum benefit of those lands for the public.148  Environmental groups and the Nixon Administration opposed the Aspinall bill fearing that it would lead to increased development of federal land devoted to conservation.149

When Aspinall was defeated in the democratic primary election in Colorado in September, 1972, Morris Udall, an environmentalist, took over for Aspinall as the chair of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittee on Environment.150   None of the five bills considered by the subcommittee during the 93rd Congress contained any provisions dealing with public lands.151  Hearings on the bills were held on May 7 and 8, 1973 but the Interior Committee did not report the bill, H.R. 10294, until February 13, 1974.152

As reported, the House bill was very similar to the Senate's, although it differed from S. 268 on a few provisions.  As opposed to the Senate bill that gave the states five years to complete land use plans, the House proposal gave only three.  Additionally, while H.R. 10294 required the states to assess the environmental impact of land development, it did not require the states to develop a

    (James A. Noone, Senate, House Differ On Approaches to Reform of Nation's Land Use Laws, National Journal, July 22, 1972, at 1194.

    (Id. at 1192.  "Although environmentalists and the Administration are enthusiastic about enactment of a bill covering private land use, they would sacrifice that goal if necessary to prevent Aspinall's public lands provisions from becoming law."  Id.

    (Stanley Plotkin, Keep Out, The Struggle for Land Use Control 191 (University of California Press, 1987).

    (James A. Noone, Congress Considers Bills Increasing State, Federal Role in Land Use Decisions, National Journal, May 5, 1973 at 637.

    (H. Rep. No. 798, 93d Congress, 2d Session (1974).


Document info
Document views154
Page views154
Page last viewedWed Jan 18 02:27:12 UTC 2017