within USGS may increase dramatically, and the 
need for communication and coordination between 
it and other agencies will grow accordingly. 
Hazard mitigation as an emphasis may be given 
a major boost by P.L. 95—124. This law, being im- 
plemented by the Office of Science and Technology 
Policy, seeks to improve preparedness and response 
planning for earthquakes, with the emphasis on 
preparedness through: (1) technically and econom- 
ically feasible design and construction methods, pro- 
cedures, and codes; (2) land-use planning; (3) earth- 
quake prediction and control; (4) communication to, 
and education of, the public; and (5) appropriate 
research of physical, engineering, and social science 
problems. The implementation plan for this law is 
currently in draft status. 
Since 1824, the Corps of Engineers has been in 
charge of improving rivers and harbors, and this has 
included almost all of the Nation’s levees, dams, and 
other protective structures. (The Bureau of Reclama- 
tion is involved in multipurpose water projects in the 
western States.) Since 1955, when P.L. 84-71 au- 
thorized such activities, the Corps of Engineers has 
made well over 100 studies on hurricanes and shore- 
line protection. About half of these studies have led 
to projects such as seawalls, revetments, breakwaters, 
groins, and bulkheads to prevent the passage of 
storm surge.1* These structures often have unantici- 
pated ecological consequences; therefore, the use of 
structural protection rather than other nonstructural 
possibilities (purchase of susceptible land, setback 
rules, preservation of natural protective features, 
and other techniques) may be questionable. 
Throughout the literature on natural hazard man- 
agement there is a constant plea for greater coordi- 
nation among all Federal agencies. Just as natural 
hazards often come in groups, the management and 
mitigation of natural hazards can only be accom- 
plished through consideration of all aspects of prepa- 
ration, mitigation, protection, and recovery. Yet the 
reorganization task force examining disaster pre- 
paredness and response reports that the current 
Federal structure frustrates the development and im- 
plementation of a coherent approach by: 1% 
¢ Issuing confusing and inconsistent policy interpre- 
tations and change(ing) them unpredictably; 
© Failing to articulate and coordinate the relation- 
ships between preparedness and response activ- 
ities; 
e Failing to provide a single point of contact for 
State, local, and private individuals and organi- 
zations; 
¢ Perpetuating duplicative administrative require- 
ments and excessive paperwork; and 
e Failing to provide a comprehensive overview of 
resource allocation and use. 
With clarification of national policy toward nat- 
ural hazard management and the establishment of a 
set of priorities for accomplishing the goals of that 
policy, the numerous Federal programs can function 
more efficiently and their effectiveness can be better 
evaluated. This procedure also can lead to better 
cooperation with State and local agencies in the 
field. Natural hazards will always exist, but their 
capacity to turn into catastrophies is inversely re- 
lated to the understanding and consideration of their 
existence by those charged with protecting the public. 
162 U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Office of Coastal 
Zone Management, op. cit. note 133, p. II-14. 
163 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, President’s Re- 
organization Project, op. cit. note 158, p. 3. 
Siting of Energy Facilities in the Coast 
Introduction 
Among the most controversial coastal issues are 
the siting of energy facilities, including offshore oil 
and gas projects, oil port facilities, liquefied natural 
gas terminals, onshore electrical generating stations, 
and offshore nuclear powerplants. 
Traditionally there was little debate about siting 
such facilities. Industry would decide the need, loca- 
tion, and timing, and government would review the 
proposal to ensure that it met basic safety and anti- 
trust standards. 
Today, however, there is political controversy 
about both the substance of siting—what facilities 
should go where, and when—and the process by 
which private industry and government decide such 
matters. Major political fights have broken out, such 
as battles over where, when, and how to lease off- 
shore oil lands and whether to use nuclear power- 
plants. While these debates take place all over the 
Nation, they are particularly intense in coastal areas, 
where development pressures already are strong, but 
where industry and Federal agencies want to locate 
many of the new energy facilities deemed necessary 
to meet the country’s future energy needs. 
If there is a common theme through these debates, 
it is that States and citizens want a more thorough 
consideration of energy alternatives, that they do 
not want to accept automatically industry or Federal 
proposals for fear that important options about 
location, safety, and environmental safeguards may 
be neglected. The debate involves questions of com- 
munity lifestyles and priorities. Citizens’ groups have 
become more activist, pushing for discussion of these 
issues. They are redefining their role in energy deci- 
sion-making and are pushing for new siting legisla- 
tion that formally recognizes their new role in siting 
decisions. 
IV-71 
