Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OOJ33:~ <br /> <br />26 <br /> <br />"Public Law 566 projects and R. C. & D. projects should <br />definitely be included under the authority of the Standards, <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />~~:r:~~~** <br /> <br />" . . the regional development account appears to be a <br />mechanism for the perpetuation of pork barrel schemes. We <br />would like to see the regional development account eliminated. <br />There is some kind of faulty logic here if when development is a <br />prime objective environmental considerations must take a back <br />seat. <br /> <br />"All projects, whether already started, proposed but not <br />activated, or new should fall under the authority of, and conform <br />to, the new Standards. Not making these Standards retroactive <br />means that previously authorized projects will not have to conform <br />to standards currently considered valid, and there is no logic in <br />that at all. " <br /> <br />* :::c * * * <br /> <br />"The demographic projections contained in the Standards <br />assume a larger population growth in the United States than will <br />probably occur, and much larger than we can safely allow to occur <br />if we want to save this part of the world. . . . <br /> <br />"Now, although it is not clear exactly to me which types of <br />projects fall under the Standards, . . . I didn't see anything about <br />the activities of the Atomic Energy Commission as they pertain to <br />the stimulation of water usage by nuclear power plants. I'd like to <br />see some statements in there about that. Also the open space <br />grants by Housing and Urban Development and waste treatment <br />grants administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, <br />there's been nothing specified about those, and it seems that they <br />would logically fall under the authority of these standards. <br /> <br />I- <br /> <br />". . . It is hoped that when these Standards are finally <br />approved they will contain measures designed to increase the <br />share of the cost paid for by beneficiaries. " <br /> <br />* * ~c ~:c :::c <br /> <br />"Totally, the Proposed Standards are not stringent enough <br />to prevent projects authorized under them from further degrading <br />the environment. They are oriented toward developers and slanted <br />toward the philosophy that economic gain is important above all <br />else. . . . <br />