826 



The coastal zone program Avliich this committee recommended to you 

 in 1972 is still in the development stage. W& have found in our exami- 

 nation of its administration to date that it is generally 'being well- 

 managed at both the Federal level and in the States, but that the job 

 we have assigned is more complex than we had anticipated, which is 

 why H.R. 3981 contains some limited extensions. 



The committee is persuaded that so far the coastal management pro- 

 gram has proven its worth. It was passed and put into effort 'before 

 the energy crisis had occurred. What we need to do now, the committee 

 recommends, is, first, enable this 'program to meet the challenge of 

 Hie energy crisis and, second, modify and update the nature of the 

 program in keeping with the experience to date. 



The total impact of the changes we recommend to you in the coastal 

 management program is to facilitate the ability of coastal areas to 

 handle the impacts our energy needs will bring. In so doing, we will 

 most certainly not delay action. In fact, the committee sees this bill as 

 a means of dealing witli present and potential causes of delay and to do 

 so in a way which will protect the natural resources of the coastal 

 regions. 



H.R, 3981 is the product of a full years deliberation. It is carefully 

 coordinated with the legislation pending before the ad hoc select com- 

 mittee on the Outer Continental Shelf. We conducted 5 days of hear- 

 ings, held extensive markup sessions and have been in contact with a 

 large number of interest groups. 



H.R. 3981 comes to you with bipartisan support. It passed the full 

 Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee by a vote of 36 to 0, And, 

 as our chairman indicated to you in her remarks, the administration 

 has indicated that it does not oppose the passage of the bill subject to 

 our working together in the conference committee. 



I would like to note that the administration remains concerned 

 about certain aspects of the impact fund — particularly in regard to 

 whether moneys should be provided prospectively or retroactively, 

 whether funds should be allocated for ecological costs, and how such 

 moneys should be distributed. I have checked with the Senate side on 

 these and other issues, and we agree that the entire spectrum of Fed- 

 eral assistance options is open for consideration by the conference 

 committee. I am confident that we can work out our differences with 

 the Senate and come up with a constructive bill on which all sides, 

 including the administration, can agree. 



I must add that our committee feels strongly that the balanced three- 

 part formula contained in H.R. 3981 will allow timely and adequate 

 assistance to the States — those that are taking part in a coastal man- 

 agement effort, that is — as soon as OCS leases are sold, in amounts 

 appropriate to the State and local requirements and for specific types 

 of activities wholly in keeping with the demands the Nation is mak- 

 ing on these most valuable and sensitive areas. 



The second part of our impact program states that only those areas 

 which can demonstrate an actual net adverse impact — where local new 

 income is outweighed by required expenses — should additional aid be 

 forthcoming. 



This represents a solid, well-thought-out approach. On the one hand, 

 we have an easily administered automatic grant formula, tied to the 



