638 



$800 million and $1.2 billion annually to cope with energy resource 

 development and related facility siting. The average of this range, or 

 $1 billion, is roughly 15 pecent of the $6.7 billion that the Federal 

 Government earned from Outer Continental Shelf leasing in 1974. 



This $1 billion figure is far greater than the $300 million figure of 

 this bill. 



Thus, there is further need for Senate consideration in this area. For 

 that reason, I would encourage the Interior Committee to continue its 

 consideration of my compensation plan embodied in my bill, S. 1388. 



This type plan is imperative to encourage additional States to de- 

 velop their offsliore energy sources. It is imperative to compensate 

 the presently producing States for the adverse effects of their produc- 

 tion efforts. 



Mr. President, I would also like to comment on the open beaches 

 portion of the measure before us today. Texas has had an open beaches 

 act since 1959, and it is landmark legislation toward protecting the 

 public access to this coimtry's beaches. I call my colleagues' attention 

 to the Texas law and hope that it will serve as a pattern for other 

 States. 



Mr. IIuMPHREY. Mr. President, S. 586, which would amend the 

 Coastal Zone Management Act, offei'S a balanced and restrained ap- 

 proach to a critical national problem, the problem of providing for 

 needed sources of energy without disrupting coastal communities or 

 threatening permanent harm to valuable coastal regions. These amend- 

 ments to the coastal zone program embodied in S. 586 and the Coastal 

 Zone ^lanagement Act of 1972 itself, are promising steps in the right 

 direction, in my opinion. 



We have heard a good deal of talk about turning power over to State 

 and local governments, and in fact serious and constructive measures 

 have been taken to try to accomplish this, as in the revenue-sharing 

 program. 



The Coastal Zone Management Act, which was initiated by this 

 body and adopted and implemented over the objections of the execu- 

 tive branch, is a pioneering program. Through this program, the 

 Federal Government, in the national interest, helps the States and 

 localities prepare their own coastal zone management plans to meet 

 their own objectives. 



With the onset of the energy crisis, major new and accelerated de- 

 mands are being made on the coastal zone. These demands have led 

 to a new set of problems in coastal zone management. S. 586 recognizes 

 tliis, and provides a reasonable approach to addressing the problems. 



The legislation provides for a coastal energy facility impact fund 

 to enable States to plan for and address the adverse impacts of Fed- 

 eral energy activities. This is a new and necessary departure from 

 our earlier practice of largely ignoring the interests and concerns of 

 coastal zone States. 



S. 586, however, is not a giveaway program. Coastal zone States 

 must demonstrate adverse impacts to receive assistance. Furthennore, 

 to be eligible to receive assistance. States must be engaged in coastal 

 zone management programs consistent with the goals and policies of 

 the act. This point seems to me to be a critical one — we have in the 

 coastal zone management effort a balanced approach to dealing with 



