663 



Mr. Stevens. Not quite. I would agree that the Arkansas situation 

 requires, as I have said to the Senator from Utah, a new concept. 



Mr. Bumpers. I understand. 



Mr. Stevens. With regard to the first part of the Senator's state- 

 ment, to the extent that the State defines the incursion of salt water 

 influence, there would be required a coastal zone management plan. 

 Part of that plan would be to try and protect that area and it might 

 well be that one of the requirements would be that the refinery be built 

 out of that area in order to protect the coastal zone and that could lead 

 to financing under this Act, as I understand it. 



But again, I hope that, in trying to deal with special problems that 

 are coming about because of development beyond the jurisdiction of 

 any State — and there are such special problems^that my friend from 

 Arkansas would not delay this bill because he also has problems within 

 his own State. We will be most willing to address these problems in 

 the future. 



Mr. Bumpers. Let me say to the Senator from South Carolina and 

 the Senator from Alaska, that I supported the Coastal Zone Manage- 

 ment Act. I support the concept of Avhat is trying to be done in this 

 bill, or at least as I originally understood the concept, and that was to 

 protect the coastal zone from all of the impact that one might sustain 

 as a result of offshore drilling. This bill goes much further tlian that. 

 It covers everything. 



I will support an amendment which changes the language of section 

 308 to say "any State," or I will support an amendment which confines 

 the aid you can get from the Secretary for coastal zone impact to those 

 impacts which are sustained as a result of offshore drilling and explo- 

 ration and development on shore as a result. Then we can all address 

 land-use management hopefully later in this session and all 50 States 

 be put on the same basis. I support land-use management. 



Mr. Stevens. I say to the Senator from Arkansas that we did that. 

 AVe passed the bill. It is over in the House of Kepresentatives now. We 

 passed it twice. We have done this in terms of the land use planning 

 bill, and I supported it. It came out of the Committee on Interior and 

 Insular Affairs. I supported it, and I think the Senator did also. It 

 is over in the House of Representatives, and it has been, as I under- 

 stand it, slightly delayed in the House. 



But the concept that the Senator is seeking we agree to. 



But let us not step backward with regard to the coastal zone. The 

 coastal zone does have special problems that the noncoastal zone does 

 not have. 



Mr. Bumpers. I recognize that. 



Mr. Brock assumed the chair. 



Mr. Stevens. That is not only the protection of the onshore areas, 

 that human beings enjoy, but also the protection for the living re- 

 sources of the sea. We have required the States to plan for it. We have 

 hopes that they will, in fact, reduce the runoff of oil. and other things, 

 that go in our streams and are destroying the fishery and other re- 

 sources of the sea. We hope we can restore these things. 



That is what some of the money which v^e are talkiufr about in tei-ms 

 of loans and grants here is intended to accomplish. If we can induce 

 the State to move an industrial area that lias potential risk of pollu- 

 tion back out of the coastal zone and give it a loan or grants to do that, 



65-310 — 7(5 43 



