At present, insurance companies cannot predict 
whether litigation or compensation procedures will 
be followed in each case of accidental injury to an 
offshore worker. Litigation awards are determined 
by juries and are often extremely high; yet, the 
injured worker may receive a substantially reduced 
amount of recovery, perhaps nothing at all, if he is 
proved negligent. Recovery under compensation 
laws, on the other hand, is automatic, but the 
amounts fixed by compensation schedules for the 
various kinds and degrees of injuries are generally 
much lower than litigation awards. 
The dilemma relates to the coverage of the 
Federal Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ 
Act, which sets rates of compensation for injuries 
occurring upon navigable waters to maritime em- 
ployees other than seamen. The Act provides an 
administrative procedure to eliminate the need for 
redress through litigation in this specific area. 
However, it has not been modernized to account 
for such equipment as manned submersibles and 
mobile drilling rigs. Thus, employees on mobile 
equipment at sea are able to seek recovery either 
through compensation under the Longshoremen’s 
Act or by litigation on the theory that they are 
“seamen.” 
When a claimant has such a choice, he can elect 
the method that maximizes his recovery. Thus the 
probable claim liability is higher, resulting in larger 
premium costs to the offshore operator. If only 
one means of recovery were available, the claim 
liability would be reduced. Consequently, the 
panel recommends enactment of legislation to 
ensure that only one method can be used to 
determine claim liability. Since it is simpler, less 
time-consuming, and establishes greater certainty 
in predicting liability, the compensation procedure 
is preferable to litigation. 
Recommendation: 
In order to reduce insurance costs, the Longshore- 
men’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act 
should be amended so it will be the exclusive 
method to determine claim liability for injuries to 
offshore workers. 
Vi. COLLABORATION 
PLANNING 
IN DEVELOPMENT 
In today’s economy, industry finds its opera- 
tions affected crucially by Government actions. In 
turn, the plans of industry have a critical effect on 
meeting National objectives. Clearly ocean devel- 
opment must be a total National enterprise in 
which government, industry and the academic 
community plan and work together on a contin- 
uing and effective basis. 
The consequences of uncoordinated action are 
easy to foresee. For example, installations located 
in areas of doubtful sovereignty might be rendered 
worthless should international agreements change; 
expensive port developments might be circum- 
vented by new modes of transportation; invest- 
ment in recreation facilities might be jeopardized 
by changes in the environment. 
Yet the difficulty of achieving effective collab- 
oration in development planning should not be 
underestimated. Oceanic activities inherently in- 
volve great risk. No one can forecast accurately the 
rate of technological development nor the manner 
in which international law will develop. There are 
additional uncertainties which constrain partici- 
pants from commitments necessary to an effec- 
tive plan. The Government, for instance, inhibited 
by political circumstances from committing funds 
to multiyear projects, usually stipulates that its 
plans are contingent upon the availability of 
appropriations. Many industries, then, hedge their 
plans to protect themselves against changes in 
costs and markets. 
A. Consolidation of Federal Functions 
The Panel finds there is no single focus within 
the Government for fostering industrial develop- 
ment of ocean resources. Many Federal agencies 
have responsibilities in the ocean, but to date no 
strong focus and in some instances no clear 
delineation of responsibility has occurred. Consoli- 
dating some existing functions would have many 
beneficial effects. 
Planning and implementation functions have in 
the past been less than optimum due to the variety 
of interests and the fragmented responsibility for 
ocean endeavors. Improvement is needed in re- 
search planning, budgeting, and administration of 
funds. A means for better coordination and 
direction is imperative as ocean development 
accelerates and conflicts of use multiply. This 
could best be achieved if a number of Government 
functions were consolidated. Industry is not only 
perplexed with the number of agencies that must 
