ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 108 INTRODUCED BY ASSEMBLYMEN MEADE, LOCKYER, SIEROTY, DEDDEH, BERMAN, BURKE, COLLIER, FORAN, JOE A. GONSALVES, INGALLS KEYSOR, LANTERMAN, MACGILLIVRAY, M'CARTHY, PAPAN, WILSON, AND WOOD-APRIL 18, 1974 (Without reference to committee) ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 108-RELATIVE TO OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AJR 108, as introduced, Meade (W.R.T.C.). Offshore oil, gas production. Memorializes the President and Congress to support and adopt such laws and regulations as will permit the state to participate in decision-making relating to the leasing of federal submerged lands off the California coast for oil or gas production. Requests that federal laws and regulations relating to such leases be at least as comprehensive and stringent as state laws and regulations governing oil or gas development under lease on state tidelands and submerged lands, and that the federal staff assigned to carry out such federal laws and regulations be at least as competent and at a comparable manpower level as the staff employed by the state for such purposes. Requests that the state be compensated by an adequate portion of the revenue derived from such federal leases, or by a share of the crude oil production itself, for expenses incurred by the state in providing support functions. Fiscal committee: no. WHEREAS, The President of the United States has indicated that the leasing of offshore waters for oil or gas production in coastal areas under federal control may be increased by 10 million acres in the next year; and WHEREAS. The Council on Environmental Quality has informed the President recently that drilling for oil and gas in the Atlantic Ocean offshore from the States of Virginia, Maryland. Delaware, and other East Coast states is acceptable; and WHEREAS, Expert testimony on known crude oil reserves off the California coast has estimated proven and potential reserves of crude oil in the billions of barrels ; and WHEREAS, Federal authorization for oil and gas drilling off the California coast is imminent and, in fact, the United States Bureau of Land Management has taken initial steps to authorize the leasing of more than seven million acres off the southern California coast, with tracts to be announced for lease in July 1974; and WHEREAS, At the present time the State of California has no control or voice in the decisionmaking process for the leasing of offshore waters under federal jurisdiction, even though the state has a primary interest in the safety, pollution prevention, economics, and aesthetics of such operations; and WHEREAS, The state has itself leased more than 175,000 acres of tidelands and submerged lands along the coast, and permitted, under staté control, and drilling of more than 4,000 wells and core holes with no significant pollution incidents; and WHEREAS, The state is known to have superior expertise in this area, with more stringent controls and safeguards than are required by the federal govern ment; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Assembly and Senate of the State of California, jointly, That the Legislature of the State of California respectfully memorializes the President and the Congress of the United States to support and adopt such laws and regulations as will permit the State of California to participate in all decisionmaking relating to the leasing of federal submerged lands off the California Coast for oil or gas production, including granting to California the right to recommend denial of any proposal which endangers the state's coastline or life or property in the state, constitutes an immediate or potential geologic hazard, or is environmentally incompatible on an aesthetic or total use basis; and be it further Resolved, That the Legislature of the State of California respectfully requests that federal laws and regulations relating to the leasing of offshore lands for oil or gas production be at least as comprehensive and stringent as laws and regulations governing oil and gas development under leases by the state on state tidelands and submerged lands, and that the federal staff assigned to carry out and enforce the federal laws and regulations be at least as competent and at a comparable manpower level as the staff employed by the State of California for these purposes; and be it further Resolved, That the Legislature of the State of California respectfully requests that the state be compensated by an adequate portion of the revenue derived from oil and gas production on federal submerged lands off the coast of California or by a share of the crude oil production itself, inasmuch as the various jurisdictions within the state, and the state itself, will be required to supply, and bear the cost of supplying, many support functions, including, but not limited to, police, fire protection, and community services; and be it further Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, to the Secretary of the Interior, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and to each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION No. 122 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY INTRODUCED BY [ASSEMBLYMAN BERMAN] ASSEMBLYMEN BERMAN, CORY, PRIOLO, AND SIEROTY, AUGUST 13, 1974 ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION No. 122-RELATIVE TO OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING IN SANTA MONICA BAY LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AJR 122, as amended, Berman (P., L.U. & E.). Offshore oil drilling. Declares the opposition of the Legislature to a designated proposal to drill for oil in [Santa Monica Bay] the southern California area, and memorializes the President and Congress to enact legislation designating the outer continental shelf a national preserve to be used for mineral production only in the event of a congressionally declared national emergency. Fiscal committee: no. WHEREAS, The United States Department of the Interior is preparing a_plan to lease approximately [1.5] 1.6 million acres of outer continental shelf [land in the Santa Monica Bay] area lands along the southern California coastline for offshore oil drilling operations; and WHEREAS, The department's proposed development of these lands appears to be based on Project Independence, a federal [proposal] policy requiring energy self-sufficiency [which only recently commenced its preliminary hearings] for which preliminary hearings commenced only this month, and is not the result of any comprehensive balanced energy policy of conservation and development; and WHEREAS, It has not been demonstrated that the development of these offshore lands is necessary to meet future energy needs that cannot be met by the development of other areas [less likely to be as seriously harmed], the development of which will have less serious adverse environmental consequences, by the development of alternative energy resources, and by the institution of practices which will conserve energy and reduce demand; and WHEREAS, The people of California, recognizing the unique quality of their coastline, overwhelmingly approved the establishment of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission as a means of protecting their coastal environment; and WHEREAS, The development of these lands will result in considerable harm to the visual environment and greatly increase the possibility of destruction of the existing underwater ecosystem and marine life in the area; and WHEREAS, The Legislature has manifested its intent to protect the South Bay area by designating the state lands in that area a protected sanctuary, thereby preventing any new offshore oil drilling; and WHEREAS, Many [South Bay area] southern California cities have already passed resolutions opposing the development of these offshore lands at this time, among which are the Cities of Los Angeles, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, Torrance, Rancho Palos Verdes, Laguna Beach and Santa Monica; and many environmental groups and interested individuals also oppose such development; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Assembly and Senate of the State of California, jointly, That the Legislature of the State of California opposes the development [of] at this time of federal outer continental shelf land for oil and gas production in the [Santa Monica Bay area for offshore oil drilling operations] southern California area; and be it further Resolved, That the Congress of the United States is hereby urged to enact legislation designating the outer continental shelf a national preserve to be used for mineral production only in the event of a congressionally declared national emergency; and be it further Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States, and to the United States Department of the Interior. Mr. BODOVITZ. I would like to stress two points. one in response to Mr. Ligon's statement that because of long lead time in production of oil from offshore leases, it would be appropriate to sign the leases now and then decide later what should be done with the oil. We think that is 100 percent wrong. The oil under the ground belongs to all the people of the United States. We think the appropriate way to deal with this is to deal with all the ramifications of offshore oil production now, before any leases are signed. Point two that I would like to stress is, as I think the discussion this morning between Senator Stevens and Mr. Cory makes clear, there is no magic way to develop a plan to deal with all the possible effects of offshore oil production. I hope it is clear that the Coastal Commission, in dealing intensively with energy, does not have any magic answer. We will, however, have some recommendations within a matter of months. There are nothing but hard decisions ahead here. But the thing that makes planning in regard to the Outer Continental Shelf oil so difficult is that it is impossible to understand what the full ramifications are, on the basis of the information we have received from the Interior Department. No one can plan adequately, and no one can know what the proper mitigating measures are, or even if the drilling should take place, until you know how, where, when, what the safety procedures would be; what kind of provisions would be made if there were an oil spill; and perhaps as important as everything, where will the oil go? Where will the pipelines be built? What is the impact on the land? How many refineries and where? It seems these matters should be fully discussed before the people can make intelligent judgments. This absence of information makes our planning extremely difficult. If there were subsea completions required, some people would find the aesthetic objections removed. It is the uncertainty that makes this so exceedingly difficult to deal with. We would, therefore, like to have your help in a Federal policy. Senator STEVENS. Isn't that what the environmental impact statement procedure calls for? Have you made such proposals, such as subsea completion to the Interior Department in connection with the environmental impact statement procedure? Mr. Bonovitz. It is in everything we have talked to the Interior Department about. Our commission and attorney general of California are suing the Federal Government saying the environmental impact statement should deal with alternative sources of energy rather than only with ways to get oil out of the Outer Continental Shelf. Senator STEVENS. No one knows until there is a discovery to where the platforms and pipelines will be located. How can you require that in advance of a decision to lease which is a prerequisite for even exploratory drilling. I listened today about giving oil to the oil companies. We don't give oil to the oil companies. The price the Government gets is determined by the price when it is produced. The oil is owned by the Federal Government and the people, and they have no interest until it is produced. There is no giving away of oil. It is the same procedure offshore as it is on land. We get a percentage of the value of the oil when it is sold. It is not figured in advance. I watched that shell game in Louisiana. There were people who sought to enjoin the Louisiana development offshore in the Gulf of Louisiana because they said Alaska was a prudent alternative to development of Louisiana. Do you know who the people were that enjoined the development of Alaskan land? The same people. We have the same problems with the development of coal now, with the strip mining regulations. We have the same problem with nuclear power. We have the same problem with oil. We have the same problem with the geothermal developments. There is a delay factor associated with each one. Part of the national energy policy is to inventory what resources are available and to provide for the development of those that can be developed in the shortest period of time. We helped create the concept of coastal zone management. We believe in it. But those comments should be directed from a commission such as yours to the environmental impact statement. That procedure would give us the decision making information required by the Secretary of Interior to decide whether or not to lease at all and if to lease, under what conditions. But as I gather from the testimony, someone seems to be waiting for the Secretary of Interior to create the suggestions himself. That is not the procedure we outlined. Those suggestions for subsea completions should come from your people. The suggestions for taking the refineries out of Los Angeles County, for instance, should be made. If we can transport from the North Slope to California, you can transport it without smog. That is the option. You people should know where the land is available to put refineries which won't cause air pollution. You know the areas such as Santa Barbara where there should be subsea completions which are within the technology today. We are looking for advice from you and you are saying, "We haven't been consulted." Are we really Alphonse and Gaston on this! Mr. BODOVITZ. I hope not. What is in the public domain is Mr. Sawhill's statement that the oil is there and the Federal Government Rodels to get it out. I was glad to hear Mr. Ligon's statement. Senator STEVENS. Mr. Ligon said consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Act there would be consultation about portions of this statement covered by such a plan. That is not the Outer Continental Shelf. The Outer Continental Shelf only governs the coastal zone to the extent it requires pipelines through the territorial sea and refineries offshore. Those are considerations that require your advice and they are going to seek that, I am sure. But I didn't understand Mr. Ligon to say the Interior Department will not lease the Outer Continental Shelf until the plan is completed. Mr. BODOVITZ. Like you, I am sure we will be interested in seeing exactly what was said. I am sure the commission feels strongly it would be inconsistent with what the voters in proposition 20 mandated. Senator TUNNEY. To show how two people sitting in the same location can draw different impressions of what somebody said, I disagree. I had the impression Mr. Ligon was saying-as far as the FEA is concerned it would be appropriate to delay any leasing in the Federal lands offshore until such time as the coastal zone plan was completed by the Coastal Management Commission. We will have to take a look at his statement again. Senator STEVENS. He said it would seem some flexibility in the timing could be negotiated. On the other hand, it should be recognized as significant leadtime. Senator TUNNEY. That is what he said in this prepared testimony, but I questioned him, and in his answer, he was a bit more specific. But we have a transcript and we will just have to read it. We will have that excerpt tomorrow. We can at that point make it public. Senator STEVENS. I have to go to God's country tomorrow. Senator STEVENS. I think the comment was made that it might be a doublecross type of thing. I don't think he meant to say, if he did say, but I don't think he did it, that lease sales were not going to take place until the plan took place. I think he said there would be flexibility. Are you prepared as part of the State commission, to segregate the southern California coast and present a plan within a shorter time frame? Negotiations imply give and take on both sides. Mr. BODOVITZ. There are many issues raised. So when you say segregate and prepare a partial plan quicker, it is difficult because we are dealing with offshore drilling, supertanker terminals, and many other facets of the energy situation. Senator TUNNEY. Are you considering the possibility of developing a management scheme on a segmented basis which would include speeding up the Southern California Coastal Management Plan portion and sending it off to Washington? Mr. BODOVITZ. Our judgment, when this has been raised before, is that, unhappily, it may create more problems than it solves. If we could look at the whole picture we would be able to make better choices. If we say we will not allow drilling here, and the consequence is that there will be a bigger tanker terminal in Morro Bay, then the people in Morro Bay will be unhappy. It is quicker and better to look at the whole picture, we believe. It seems to us there would be immensely different reactions for a pro |