968 



82 



Onshore planning is already controlled by the States. State and local 

 jurisdiction over pipeline rights-of-way and refinery siting should pro- 

 vide substantial leverage for State control of onshore development 

 associated with offshore activity. 



The opportunity for cooperative efforts in OCS planning, and con- 

 trol of onshore development protect the States now. Considering the 

 lead time involved in OCS exploration and development programs, 

 no additional delays are necessary to protect the States' future 

 interests. 



Grant Focus 



Each of the various bills provides funds for and authority to make 

 grants to the eligible coastal States (H.R. 6090 includes noncoastal 

 States as well) to assist in studying, managing, and ameliorating the 

 impacts associated with the development of Federal energy resources 

 in or on the OCS. The specifics of the grants are, however, so broadly 

 written that it is difficult to know with certainty what problems may 

 have to be addressed or which activities may finally qualify for fund- 

 ing. For example, in H.R. 3981 and H.R. 3807 "direct and indirect" 

 effects are included and awards made to States "likely" to be adversely 

 affected in proportion to "anticipated" or actual adverse impacts, and 

 in H.R. 6090 such grants are to be used for specific activities "and such 

 other activities as may be deemed by the State to be in its best inter- 

 est." In light of present economic and budget concerns and due to the 

 considerable sums which these bills would make available, a more 

 specific focus for grants is required than these bills provide. 



Impacts on the Coastal States 



All the bills, except H.R. 6090, assume that the major impact of 

 OCS leasing will be on a coastal area. While the coastal area will 

 undoubtedly undergo some degree of growth and economic or social 

 change, there is no guarantee that refining and processing and major 

 facilities associated therewith will be located in the coastal State. For 

 example, a significant amount of OCS production off the State of 

 Louisiana immediately enters a pipeline and is transported to the 

 Chicago area. The bills do not take into consideration those situations 

 in which the major and final impact is elsewhere. To this extent, the 

 bills are discriminatory. 



Federal Consistency With Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 



The sponsors of H.R. 3981 and H.R. 3807 indicate that one of the 

 purposes of the bill is to make the "Federal consistency provision in 

 the Coastal Zone Management Act more specific with regard to Fed- 

 eral oil and gas leasing, development, production, and energy facilities 

 siting activities which directly or indirectly affect a State zone pro- 

 gram." These bills broaden the applicability of existing Coastal Zone 

 Management Act language to include activities authorized by lease, 

 as well as permit or license, and would then add a new paragraph 

 containing certification requirements applicable specifically to energy 

 related activities which "directly or indirectly" affect the "coastal zone 

 program". We do not believe this language modifies or improves the 

 basic concept of the Federal consistency provision. Rather, it renders 

 almost any activity potentially subject to the certification provisions 

 because it is uncertain an indirect effect exists. 



