844 



Second, the bill authorizes adverse impact grants to be made avail- 

 able to coastal States that have or will suffer net adverse impacts as a 

 result of energy activity. Net adverse impact is defined by the bill as 

 occurring when the beneficial consequences of coastal energy activity 

 are outweighed by its economic and environmental costs. Unlike the 

 automatic grants, the adverse impacts grants can be extended to in- 

 clude the development of deep water ports, and liquified natural gas, 

 coal and oil loading facilities. 



Third, H.R. 3891 would authorize guarantees of State and local 

 bonds issued to provide public services and facilities which are made 

 necessary by OCS energy activities. Guarantees could only be ap- 

 proved if the State or local government would otherwise be unable to 

 secure the funds without a Federal guarantee. 



The bill does contain other provisions which extend its scope. For 

 example, requirements are added to existing State coastal zone man- 

 agement programs which would mandate evaluation of options so as 

 to provide public access to beaches and other public areas. Mechanisms 

 are provided whereby local governments can contest State provisions 

 which affect them. Federal funding is extended to support interstate 

 planning arrangements. And finally, money is made available for a 

 State and Federal research program to guard against unforeseen en- 

 vironmental and economic consequences. 



Mr. Chairman, while I do endorse the provisions of this bill, I would 

 like to add one note of caution. I feel that it is possible that under the 

 automatic grant provisions the Federal funds will not go where they 

 are most needed. For example, the formula which has been proposed 

 will benefit the State of I^uisiana to a much greater extent than other 

 States due to the off-shore activity which has already begun in that 

 region. By placing too much emphasis on production rather than need, 

 there may very well be a misallocation of funds which will short- 

 change areas such as the mid- Atlantic region and Alaska. I do feel 

 that regulations can prevent this problem from taking place, but this 

 possibility should be addressed early on by the Department of 

 Commerce. 



Mr. Chairman, as we turn increasingly to the sea to recover our lim- 

 ited oil and gas supplies, we must become increasingly aware of the 

 possible dangers which could accrue to our beautiful coastlines and 

 their surrounding environment. It is necessary for us to develop these 

 new energy supplies, but we must always bear in mind that our en- 

 vironment must not be sacrificed in the name of energy exploration 

 and development. Toward this end, the Coastal Zone Management Act 

 represents a needed step forward. 



Mr. RuppE. Mr, Chairman, with congressional passage of the Coastal 

 Zone Management Act of 1972, the first positive step w^as taken to 

 guarantee the precious resource that is our national coastline. The bill 

 Ave have before us today, H.E. 3981, is intended to carry the original 

 act to fruition, preserving and protecting our coastal land area, while 

 permitting that area to be fully and properly utilized. It cannot be 

 denied that the 1972 act has been enthusiastically accepted by our 

 coastal States — without exception, every one of those States has opted 

 to participate in the voluntary programs made possible through 

 this act. 



