631 



believe the way we should do this in the coastal zone is by planning, 

 through the States, to avoid undesirable impacts and to compensate 

 the coastal States which experience them. The mechanism for doing 

 so should not be a separate mechanism which fragments State coastal 

 zone management but should be part and parcel of the entire coastal 

 zone management eft'ort. To do otherwise would be contrary to the 

 congressional intent and declaration of 1972, when we decided that 

 the States should have the basic coastal zone administrative respon- 

 sibility in the form of a single comprehensive program supported by 

 the Federal Government. The States support S. 586 and so do the 

 environmental organizations which have seen the disasterous effects 

 of attempting to protect the environment in fragmented fashion. 



The only price the Nation can afford to pay is a monetary one 

 and this bill and the entire Coastal Zone Management Act are designed 

 to head off other irreversible costs. These include those caused by 

 unplanned urban development which is ordinarily attendant to the 

 increased energy development as well as costs of massive environmen- 

 tal damage as a result of a lack of proper planning and management. 



Almost 80 percent of the Nation's population soon will live in the 

 limited coastal zone. Most of the impacts of increased energy devel- 

 opment will be experienced there. Unfortunately, the critical nature 

 of the coastal zone, which inspired the Coastal Zone Management 

 Act, magnifies many of the adverse impacts of energy facilities and 

 activities. As I said, the new provisions complement the existing 

 Coastal Zone Management Act and the existing administrative mech- 

 anisms already in existence. One of the more important features of 

 the existing act is its consistency requirements which mandate that 

 Federal agencies issuing licenses, permits et cetera which authorize 

 activities affecting the coastal zone must be consistent with approved 

 State coastal zone management programs except where a matter of 

 national security is involved. I wholeJieartedly support the provi- 

 sions of S. 586 to be part of the Coastal Zone Management Act for this 

 reason as well. "VVe need to continue to support and encourage the 

 States in decisionmaking and S. 586 does this. 



S. 586 is a responsible bill. I urge my colleagues to support it so that 

 the Congress may make another needed legislative contribution in re- 

 sponse to our national energy needs. 



Furthermore, Mr. President, former President Nixon's January 

 1974 energy message to the Congress, on behalf of the administration, 

 called for congressional enactment of legislation recommended by tlie 

 administration for planned orderly siting of energy' facilities. 



Subsequently, the Congress received other administration energy 

 bills from it. But even though requests were made by INIembers of 

 Congress for the energy facilities siting proposal so we could see 

 just what the administration had in mind, the administration bill 

 was never transmitted to us during all of the 2d session of the 93d 

 Congress, 



At the same time, the Congress Avas the recipient of criticism from 

 the administration for an alleged failure to pass energy legislation. 



In the careful deliberations of the Congress on vai'ioiis legislative 

 alternatives in different energy related areas, T do not know that this 

 paradox has ever been pointed out. 



05-31 — 7C> 41 



