Mr. Koons. Two different ways. Site selection involves commercial development, including residential subdivisions and that kind of thing, so there is control there. In addition, of course, the requirements that we have over water quality effluents give us a monitoring position with respect to growth in towns. If the town is to grow enough to overload the treatment facilities which we hope they will have in operation in a few years, then we must specify further construction of facilities, and this kind of thing. Senator MUSKIE. Senator Boggs has another question. Senator BOGGS. Commissioner, I asked about coastal planning. Do you have a State agency that is involved in the coastal planning? Mr. Koons. Yes, the State planning board is specifically involved in coastal planning. In fact, there is a high priority item engaged in detailed planning for the coast at the present time. We contemplate that this plan will be completed in its preliminary phases at least by 1972. In the interim, the site location act serves to control developments. Senator BOGGS. I see. Mr. Koons. At isolated single locations. Senator BOGGS. Very good. Now it has been mentioned that the statute is being challenged in court in a couple of instances, I think. Mr. KOONS. Yes. Senator BOGGS. It would be interesting to have for the record information on the provisions that are being challenged. Mr. KOONS. We have, I believe, five different actions directed against the Commission at the present time. Senator BOGGS. Yes. Mr. KOONS. Two of these are by, first of all, the consortium of 10 oil companies, 10 major oil companies who are challenging the general constitutionality of the oil conveyance statute, all of the provisions of that statute. Senator BOGGS. Very good. Mr. KOONS. A second suit, essentially parallel to this, has been brought by Portland Pipeline Corp., which is a subsidiary, wholly owned, of six other companies, this also challenging the general constitutionality of that statute. The other three actions at the present time involve questions raised by King Resources Co., one having to do with the question of jurisdiction of the commission, one having to do with the questions of applicability and the general authority of the commission, and one, I think, also challenging the constitutionality of the Act. In other words, rather a broad approach to the question. Senator BOGGS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator MUSKIE. So when these actions have been decided, you will know what actual authority you have left. Mr. Koons. In the meantime, we act according to the statutes, yes, sir. Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much. I think that the record indicates Maine has done pretty well by comparison with other States in the writing of its law. How we apply it is the next chapter. Mr. KooNs. That is another question. (The material supplied by Mr. Koons follows:) (WATER AND AIR) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION REVISED STATUTES OF 1964 Title 38 (As Amended) Chapter 3: Protection and Improvement of Waters Chapter 4: Protection and Improvement of Air Effective October 1, 1969 with Amendments by the First Special Session of the 104th Legislature Effective May 9, 1970 Wherever in the Revised Statutes or public laws the words "Water and Air Environmental Improvement Commission" appear they shall mean "Environmental Improvement Commission." |