616 



of Commerce imder rules and regulations he shall prescribe consist- 

 ent with national policy ns expressed in the Coastal Zone Manage- 

 ment Act of 1972 and with State programs being established pursu- 

 ant to that act. 



One recently released study attests to the size of the problem facing 

 State and local governments. And with a stepped-up offshore pro- 

 gram, this problem will grow. The Texas Coastal and Marine Coun- 

 cil, headed by State Senator A. E. Schwartz of Galveston, the cur- 

 rent president of Coastal States Organization, requested a study be 

 made of the costs and offsetting revenues for the State of Texas as 

 a consequence of oil and gas operations in Federal waters off its 

 shore. Tlie results of this study are interesting indeed. It demonstrates 

 that the Texas Office of Information Services reported receipt of 

 $48.9 million in tax revejiues from the various activities onshore 

 brought about by the offshore operations. The costs of providing extra 

 services required for these operations to State and affected local 

 governments is reported to be $11 million. Simple mathematics leaves 

 Texas with an annual deficit of approximately $62 million. 



Because of this traditional shortchanging of States in the revenues 

 from Federal offshore activities, this bill proposes to make grants 

 from the Coastal Impact Fund to cover 100 percent of the costs in- 

 curred by the States, and does not require matching funds. The special 

 nature of the problem and the special needs of the affected coastal 

 States justify this departure from the basic philosophy of the Coastal 

 Zone Management Act. However, to be eligible to receive grants from 

 the fund. States must be participating in the coastal zone program 

 and the Secretary is required to coordinate grants from the fund 

 with the States' coastal zone managment programs. 



The second major provision of tliis bill concerns the so-called 

 "Federal consistency provision" of the Coastal Zone Management 

 iVct. While this provision clearly states that all Federal licenses and 

 permits must be consistent with a State's approved coastal zone man- 

 agement program to the extent practicable, the applicability of this 

 provision to Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas development activi- 

 ties has not yet been established by the courts. Our bill would make 

 this provision specific with regarcl to Federal leasing activities and 

 to OCS development and production activities directly or indirectly 

 affecting the coastal zone of coastal States, thereby assuring a mod- 

 icum of substantive State participation in decisionmaking concern- 

 ing the timing and location of offshore development. 



The next major component of the Coastal Zone Environment Act 

 deals with the need to provide States with incentives to engage in in- 

 terstate or regional coastal zone management efforts. While the present 

 act encourages coastal States to do so, the reality is that "in-State" 

 coastal zone management problems and needs are so immediate and 

 so compelling that activities of more than State concern are tended 

 to be accorded a lower priority or are simply deferred or ignored. 

 Obviously, coastal zone management problems do not halt at a State 

 boimdary line. Many decisions, such as providing for regional water 

 or sewer facilities, energy needs, or gaging the impact of a refinery, 

 must be worked out at the regional level and in close coordination with 

 the coastal zone management programs of other coastal States. It is 



