944 



58 



receive monies both under the impact fund and other federal statutes 

 for the same projects unless the funds from the other federal program 

 or programs are insufficient to accomplish the purposes set forth in 

 section 308(b) (2). In this event, a net adverse impact could remain, 

 in part, and thus the Secretary could provide a grant pursuant to 

 this subsection. However, it should be noted that funds from other 

 federal programs may not be used as the state's matching share for 

 these 80 percent impact grants (see section 320(c) ) , avS redesignated, of 

 H.R. 3981). Consequently, the inadequacy of other federal programs 

 to accomplish the purposes of this subsection does not include the 

 portion attributable to the coastal state's 20 percent matching share. 



The implementation of this particular subparagraph will require 

 very precise rule-making on the part of the Secretary. A key word in 

 (D) is "availability."' This word was used by the Committee to indicate 

 that the coastal state which may be making an application for a net 

 adverse impact grant should have pursued, or at least be pursuing, 

 other federal programs such as highway funds, Environmental Protec- 

 tion Agency sewage treatment grants, school construction funds, and 

 the like. As part of the regulations, the Secretary should enumerate 

 all "available'' federal programs which may be used, in whole or in 

 part, to ameliorate the adverse effects of coastal energy activity. It is 

 recognized, of course, that these other federal programs will not utilize 

 such specifically defined phrases as "net adverse impacts" and "coastal 

 energy activity'' as they are used in the Coastal Zone Management 

 Act. Consequently, the Secretar}' will be required to inventory all pro- 

 grams which, if applicable, may provide fimds for public facilities 

 and public services or the reduction of ecological or recreational 

 resources losses. 



"Available", in this context, implies that other appropriate federal 

 funds are obtainable. If, through no fault of the applicant coastal 

 state, other federal monies are not forthcoming although the state 

 made reasonable elforts to obtain them, they should not be considered 

 "benefits" in the net adverse impact calculation. The burden of docu- 

 menting these efforts, as well as the general obligation of demonstrat- 

 ing a net adverse impact, remains with the state. 



Paragraphs (3) (B) and (3) (C) specify additional criteria which 

 are to be taken into account in determining whether a net adverse im- 

 pact from a coastal energy activity has occurred. 



Subparagraph (B) requires the Secretary to consider the applicant 

 state's overall efforts to reduce or ameliorate net adverse impacts. The 

 Secretary should determine what form these efforts could take includ- 

 ing the particular state and local tax structure and environmental laws 

 and ordinances. Clearly, the types of protections inherent in the state's 

 coastal zone management program are to be considered. Additionally, 

 the Secretary is to consider the state's effort to insure that those who 

 are responsible for the net adveree impacts are required, to the maxi- 

 mum extent practicable, to ameliorate tliese impacts themselves. Again, 

 the state's efforts to encourage this "internalization of costs'' by those 

 responsible may be exerted in a number of ways, including tax incen- 

 tives, strong environmental protection laws, and the withholding of 

 siting permission until certain conditions are met. 



Finally, the Committee considers subparagraph (C) an essential 

 factor to be considered in the regulations governing this section. The 



