825 



It is clear that coastal States and commimkies can bring about delay 

 or even permanent bans on offshore drilling. By exercising State and 

 local powers over the uses of State-controlled shores and waters, the 

 national need to proceed with OCS operations can effectively be 

 thwarted by a State willing to take this action. 



We have seen in the suits filed by various States against Federal 

 plans to lease OCS lands outside State jurisdiction, but adjacent to 

 them, how strongly some areas feel about this question. 



It is to bring the Federal, State, and local units of government 

 together in energy facility planning that is the principal objective of 

 H.R. 3981. Given the critical nature of energy requirements, we simply 

 must see to it that our basic governmental processes involved are made 

 to work. It is not in the national interest for States and local com- 

 munities to feel so threatened by Federal action that they feel 

 compelled to go to court or to pass special, restrictive legislation. 



We are all familiar with fights in our respective States over pro- 

 posals to locate major new developments, whether they be for new 

 offiQe buildings, shopping centers, or whatever. In these cases, citizens 

 rally to protect what they see as a threat to their community, regard- 

 less of the economic benefits which may follow. 



These controversies, where they occur, cause delay; sometimes they 

 cause projects to be canceled. 



If this type of resistence is taking place .all over the country, it is 

 easy to imagine the feelings in rural counties faced for the first time 

 with the prospect of dealing with the huge offshore oil industry — 

 Especially when the tax proceeds from this activity go entirely to the 

 Federal Government, but the expense of providing services made nec- 

 essary by the new industry is borne by the local and State govern- 

 ments. When tax revenues generated by the new industrial activity 

 are not enough to meet the public expenditures, communities are faced 

 with a new loss. When the Federal Government causes it, we would 

 not expect the local governments to pay. 



What your committee has done in H.R. 3981 is not simply to open 

 the Federal Treasury to coastal States. Instead, a carefully worked- 

 out approach has been devised, combining elements of simplicity of 

 administration with equity to the Federal taxpayers, as well as the 

 persons in the local communities and States directly affected by Fed- 

 eral de-cisions to go ahead with OCS leasing— or with other, similar 

 coastal energy activities. 



First, it is a key to H.R. 3981 to remember that to be eligible for 

 any aid from the Federal Government, a State has to be working with 

 its local governments to come up with a comprehensive coastal man- 

 agement program. Right away, this differentiates this bill from alter- 

 native Avays to deal with the problem. And, it is the strongly held belief 

 of our committee that any attempts to deal with State and local impacts 

 from such energy activities as those associated with OCS drilling — 

 attempts not based on the coastal zone management program— are 

 fundamentally incorrect, and not in the public interest. 



The country needs the coastal mangement program to succeed. In 

 order to do so we must see to it that planning and impact fundmg 

 for energy facilities are tied directly to this currently successful effort 

 on the part of tlie States and local communities. 



