195 



That it is also the declared policy of this state that the public, individually and 

 collectively, shall have the free and unrestricted right of ingress and egress to 

 and from the state-owned beaches bordering on the seaward shore of the Gulf 

 of Mexico and hence the people of the State of Texas have a further primary 

 interest in conserving the natural beauty of the state's beaches and protecting 

 and conserving them for the use of the public ; 



That the Interagency Natural Resources Council has been directed by the 

 Legislature to make a comprehensive study to prepare the way for constructive 

 legislation for the iiresent and future protection of the interest of the people of 

 the State of Texas in such submerged lands, beaches, islands, estuaries, and 

 estuarine areas ; and 



That the purpose, intent, and effectiveness of such constructive legislation 

 for the present and future protection of the people of the State of Texas cannot 

 be achieved if the sale and leasing of the state-owned submerged lands, beaches, 

 and islands is continued under the existing laws of this state without regard to 

 detailed modern scientific knowledge of these submerged lands, beaches, and 

 islands which will result from the Council study and before such information can 

 be collected and finally reported to the Legislature, 



All create an emergency and an imperative public necessity that the Consti- 

 tutional Rule requiring bills to be read on three several days in each Plouse be 

 suspended, and this Rule is hereby suspended ; and that this Act shall take effect 

 and be in force from and after its passage, and it is so enacted. 



Passed the Senate on September 6, 1969 : Yeas 29 ; Nays ; passed the House 



on September S, 1969 : Yeas 134, Nays 4. 

 Approved Sept. 19, 1969. 

 Effective Sept. 19, 1969. 



NossAMAN, Waters, Scott, Krueger & Riordan, 



Los Angeles, Calif., November 18, 1969. 

 Hon. Alton Lennon, 

 Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanor/raphy, Committee on Merchant Marine and 



Fisheries, 

 House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 



Dear Mr. Lennon : I am a member of the California Advisory Commission on 

 Marine and Coastal Resources and was one of its representatives at the recent 

 Congressional Conference on Coastal Zone Management sponsored by your Sub- 

 committee. During the discussion following the presentations made on October 28, 

 1969, in Panel 5, I made an abbreviated statement to call attention to the fact 

 that the definition of "coastal zone" contained in the proposed House legislation 

 (now H.R. 14730 and 14731) as well as S. 2802 would be limited to lands within 

 the boundaries of the coastal states and would exclude some areas in which cer- 

 tain coastal states have a strong and legitimate concern. With due regard to the 

 fact that limitations of time prevented me from adequately covering this concept 

 at the Conference, your Subcommittee Counsel, Thomas A. Clingan, Jr., invited 

 me to do so by letter to you. I am happy to further treat the matter here. 



As you undoubtedly are aware, the 1965 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in 

 United States v. California, 381 U.S. 139, held that the lands confirmed unto the 

 State of California by the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 did not include San 

 Pedro Bay, the Santa Barbara Channel, Santa Monica Bay and other lands 

 lying between the Channel Islands off California and the mainland. This result 

 led to the sale of Federal oil and gas leases in the Santa Barbara Channel early 

 in 1968 and the subsequent drilling of offshore exploratory and development 

 wells which included the illfated Union Oil Company A-21 well with its vast 

 spillage of oil. A strong and valid case can be made that, notwithstanding the 

 holding in the 1965 California case, the State of California has an interest in 

 actively participating in the planning of areas under Federal jurisdiction lying 

 between the Channel Islands, which are within the boundaries of the State, and 

 the mainland. Santa Catalina Island, for example, lies less than 25 miles from 

 the City of Los Angeles and is within the political jurisdiction of the County of 

 Los Angeles. It is quite likely that broadscale development of the Island and 

 offshore areas under the jurisdiction of the State of California will be under- 

 taken within the next few years which will directly affect the Federal offshore 

 lands. In the same fashion, the use of Federal lands for mineral development 

 or other uses will strongly affect the development of the lands lying within the 

 jurisdiction of the State. The interrelationship between Federal and State lands 

 in this area is illustrated by accompanying Resolution R-VI-1 of the California 



