Senator TUNNEY. Thank you. We appreciate your being here. As always, you make a very effective witness. Mrs. Seidenberg, you will be representing the mayor of the city of Santa Barbara?

Mrs. SEIDENBERG. Right.

Senator TUNNEY. Please proceed.

Mrs. SEIDENBERG. David Shiffman could not be here today. He had a prior commitment and had to be at a meeting. He asked me to present two resolutions which were passed recently by the city of Santa Barbara. I will read them.

The following resolutions are the statements authorized to be read into the record by the city council of the city of Santa Barbara at its meeting of Tuesday, September 24, 1974:

RESOLUTION No. 7938

A resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara, California, supporting the Seashore Environmental Alliance petition in opposition to offshore oil drilling.

Whereas the Seashore Environmental Alliance is a recently formed coalition dedicated to the preservation of the California coastline; and,

Whereas the Seashore Environmental Alliance is sponsoring the circulation of a petition declaring opposition to proposed offshore oil drilling along the Southern California coast except in the event of a national emergency declared by Congress; and,

Whereas, the City of Santa Barbara sustained serious damages as a result of oil spilled from an offshore oil drilling platform in 1969;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Council of the City of Santa Barbara: That the City Council hereby declared its support of the petition circulated by the Seashore Environmental Alliance declaring opposition to the offshore oil drilling proposal along the Southern California coast, except in the event of a national emergency declared by Congress.

That was adopted August 27, 1974.

RESOLUTION No. 7939

A resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara, California, opposing offshore oil drilling.

Whereas the California coastline is an important and irreplaceable natural resource of great aesthetic beauty and recreational value; and,

Whereas the recent decision of the United States Department of the Interior approving renewed oil drilling in the Santa Barbara Channel was made without adequate consideration of the restriction mandated by the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act; and,

Whereas the comprehensive plan for the land use of the California Coastal Zone as provided by the California Coastal Conservation Zone Act has not yet been completed and adopted; and,

Whereas the City of Santa Barbara sustained severe damages as a result of oil spilled from an offshore oil drilling platform in 1969; and,

Whereas the federal government has not promulgated adequate regulations. for the conduct of offshore oil drilling operations to ensure that another oil spill disnster will not reeur; and,

Whereas the proposed offshore oil drilling will endanger the beaches and other recreational areas of the California constline:

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Council of the City of Santa Barbara: That the City of Santa Barbara opposed the approval by the federal government of any new offshore oil drilling lenses and the renewal or commencement of oil drilling on any previously approved lenses,

That was adopted August 97, 1971.

The city of Santa Barbara has adopted an ordinance which prevents. any oil development whatsoever in the city limits of Santa Barbara. I am not going to answer questions today, because I have not been

authorized to do so by the city, however, I am a member of the panel tomorrow and will have a statement and I hope at that time, there will be questions I can answer.

Senator TUNNEY. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Milan Dostel, who is mayor pro tem of Newport Beach.

Mr. DOSTEL. I am mayor pro tem of Newport Beach, Calif. It is indeed my pleasure to appear today to present our views on the Federal Government proposal to permit drilling for oil off the shore of southern California. My colleagues from the other coastal cities have already expressed their concerns, citing serious problems connected with such an undertaking.

We are in full agreement with their remarks in opposition to offshore oil development and while I do not intend to reiterate the points already made, I would like to point out we have always believed that decisions which affect the lives of those who live within our boundaries should be made only after participation by those who are or will be affected.

We, in the city of Newport Beach, are concerned that this decision made by the Federal Government was made without benefit of public input from those who would be affected the most. The residents of those communities in southern California view the Outer Continental Shelf not as a virgin pool of oil to be exploited but as a national recreational area which should be preserved for the use and benefit, not only of this generation, but of future generations as well.

We are concerned that this decision was made by the Federal Government and is another instance of short-range, temporary solutions to a permanent long-range problem.

Too often, I am afraid we are prone to accepting solutions which are expedient rather than demanding solutions to our problem which do not, in turn, create other problems of a much more serious nature.

One example that quickly comes to mind is the freeway system in southern California. As it was being planned, developed, and constructed, it was hailed by many as the ultimate solution to the transportation problem but today we can see that not only it was not the ultimate solution but it created many more problems than it had solved. Had we not relied so heavily on the freeways, had we had the foresight to study what side effects the creation of such a system might generate, we might have devised a system which would not have had such a devastating effect on our environment and our health.

I believe we are now at a point in time when we are faced with the same kind of decision regarding our energy problems. Shall we continue to deplete this natural, irreplaceable resource because it is expedient or should we preserve it for a time when the crisis occurs where we or future generations may find it to be of a more critical nature than it is today?

I believe the answer is clear. We must commit ourselves now to the development of alternate sources of energy and that commitment must be on a national level with the highest of priorities. We must free ourselves from our reliance on a source of energy which is transitory in nature and is, to a large extent, subject to manipulation by outside interests.

If we as a nation make this commitment, it is inconceivable to me that our scientific and technical community cannot solve the problem in a

relatively short period of time. We put a man on the Moon in a brief span of our history, once our Federal Government recognized the priority and made the necessary commitment.

American scientists have always taken great pride in their ability to accomplish those things which seemed impossible. With the backing of the Federal Government and the people, I am sure they can once again rise to the challenge which now faces them.

Exploring solar, nuclear, geothermal, conversion of solid waste and other sources of energy, and adopting them for use in place of petroleum products should be the Nation's No. 1 priority.

A few moments ago, I made reference to the view taken by most Californians regarding the Outer Continental Shelf being a recreational area to be preserved for the use and benefit of future generations. I should expand that not to include just Californians but the thousands and thousands of people from other States and countries. who come to California each year to use and enjoy this area.

It is a most highly used recreational area and it is my belief it should be designated as a national preserve or national park. Recreational areas, are, after all, a vital part of our environmental and should not be destroyed or tampered with. Just as we would not consider defacing the Grand Canyon or Yosemite National Park, we should not consider defacing this important recreational area.

In Newport Beach alone, over 9,000 boats are berthed in the harbor and the beach attracts between 50,000 and 200.000 people per day. The possibility of desecration of this one area is quite high, if current plans for offshore oil drilling are carried out.

There can be no absolute guarantee that oilspills or blowouts will not occur or the area will not be lost forever. I ask the committee to make every effort to reverse the discussions of the Department of the Interior and pledge its support to the investigation of alternate sources of energy on a high priority basis.

Thank you very much.

Senator TUNNEY. Mrs. Russell, and any other member of the panel that would like to respond, do you believe that the announced intentions of the Department of the Interior to increase oil and gas development will seriously compromise local planning efforts?

Mrs. RUSSELL. I have no doubt it will. I think not only the concerns that has been expressed about the possibility of contamination through oilspills and the esthetic considerations, but look at the land use planning. I think there is no question that I think it was our first speaker who said we don't burn crude oil directly. We have to have refineries and the amount they are talking about indicates refineries in rather massive numbers.

As I have heard the industry proposals, they are talking about massive installations on the very coastline we are trying to preserve and where we are trying to guarantee adequate housing.

Senator TUNNEY. Is that the general consensus?

Mr. HOLM. It certainly is mine.

Senator TUNNEY, Fine. Just one last question. One of our witnesses, Mr. Duke Ligon, has to catch a 12: 15 plane back to Washington. He is involved in the Economic Summit Conference and he must be there and we want to give him an opportunity to testify before he has to leave for the plane.

I was wondering if you can tell us, will construction of onshore facilities for refining and storage significantly impact the transportation and control plans under development by the communities in southern California?

Mrs. RUSSELL. We are really doing our best in Los Angeles to survive with the controls as they are now. The city of Los Angeles has taken the posture that we can work with the Federal Government on it. I think they are working with us. We will have to stretch to be able to met them with what we have now. Our coastal area is badly congested in terms of transportation.

To add something of this massiveness means whether we will have people or industrial oil resources on the coast. I think there is one answer to the alternatives. I think it is a genuine alternative.

Senator TUNNEY. It is true, is it not, that there will be tremendous difficulty meeting the air quality standards and it will require a degree of flexibility on the part of the Environmental Protection Agency and perhaps, even some modifications of the law by Congress, in order to be able to move into a period where we can meet those air quality standards which all of us feel are important?

Mrs. RUSSELL. I could not say now that I believe we should change the law in Congress. I think the State standard we have now, the degree of smog in the last few weeks, emphasizes the importance of doing something in southern California. I am chairman of the planning committee and we spend a great deal of time trying to work out transportation and parking requirements in relation to land use planning so we can meet the EPA requirements.

We have had to make the choice whether to go for changing the laws and our mayor has made a statement that I support that we are not ready to support changes in the law yet.

The EPA has been to this point flexible in their discussions with the city, but we face a marked reduction in automobile use. Our people find this is vital in view of transportation and smog in response to the EPA requirements.

Senator TUNNEY. In Thursday's LA Times, September 26, there is a report on Mayor Bradley's position. It states he had made a personal commitment to Senator Muskie that the city would show good faith in efforts to achieve clean air in return for his deadline in the law to be amended. I don't want to fight as to whether we should amend the law in this particular forum but only to suggest if we have the oil and gas development of the kind being proposed, it will have adverse impact on southern California's ability to meet the air quality standards.

Mrs. RUSSELL. We will barely meet them as it is, if we can do that. This kind of development would make it absolutely impossible and would obviously countermand the legislation for clean air.

Senator TUNNEY. Senator Stevens?

Senator STEVENS. I would like to ask the panel one question. Statements I have heard today indicate you believe the decision has been made. I am one of the original sponsors of the National Environmental Policy Act. I think the decision was to start the process which could ultimately lead to leasing. The Environmental Protection Act, through the environmental impact statement, gives interested persons the opportunity to be heard, to review the statement, and certainly an

opportunity to enjoin the proposed action if you didn't like the decision.

What do you seek beyond that course of action? Do you want a decision that there shall be no oil and gas leasing at all?

Mrs. RUSSELL. Mr. Stevens, there are a variety of ways to answer that. The concern we have expressed from Los Angeles is that the procedures should be followed. The granting of leases next May will not permit the input in the Environmental Protection Act. I mentioned the act in the coastal area and airport area. It saved us in many respects. Senator STEVENS. Why couldn't it save you now?

Mrs. RUSSELL. Because of the time schedule given for the May granting of the leases.

Senator STEVENS. That is only if the final decision of the impact statement is to go ahead. You don't know what it will be.

Mrs. RUSSELL. We feel the determination and movement of the Federal Government with Project Independence as well as what they have stated on granting leases and the administrative work being done, really indicates that they intend to railroad through the granting of the leases in May and that the environmental impact statement will be made to appear that it is the correct action to take. We feel we have to take steps like this outside that EIS procedure to make sure that not only that procedure will be followed, but some of the others, too. I think another feature not only of the environmental impact statement, but the relationship to a Federal economic policy is essential. The concerns for other alternative methods of energy sources, for looking to future generations-I have heard even the gas and oil producers say that future generations, when they look to the use of petroleum products for chemistry or agriculture, fertilizers, for which petroleum is irreplaceable, will look back and find we burned it all up.

In this case, we feel the outside forces or the forces of the Federal Government are such that they will override the environmental impact

statement.

Mr. DOSTEL. We can all address ourselves to that subject and we are concerned that the action taken to date indicates that the machinery is in motion to adopt these leases and we are concerned about this. We don't want to be placed in the position of having to expend large sums of money for legal expenses to enjoin the Federal Government from doing something we do not believe should be done in the first instance.

Mr. HOLM. I think that, Senator Stevens, you may not be aware of some things that have taken place here in southern California. We have had representatives from the administration out here telling us we have to open up this area out here for oil exploration.

There have been statements of the Federal Energy Administrator to that effect in which he was berating us publicly for what he in so many words characterized as a parochial attitude. Because of this and other things from the Department of the Interior, we are appropriately cynical about the whole progression.

The environmental impact statement written for the reopening of the leases in the Santa Barbara Channel speaks to the same kinds of problems that the EIS written for these leases would speak and it found it was fine to go ahead. They have the same problems up there with respect to seismicity but they don't have the deepwater problems we have here.