« AnteriorContinuar »
Barbara Channel his environmental Bay of Pigs. Let's have no repetition of this mistake along the rest of the southern California coast, Senator TUNNEY. Thank you very much. Mrs. Sidenberg. I have had the opportunity on numerous occasions to discuss these matters with you privately and I have heard you testify on these matters before the relevant congressional committees. I want to congratulate you for the interest you have shown and the thoughts you have developed as a result of these problems.
I think it has been of great help to me personally, and to other Members of Congress, in obtaining a better understanding of what the development of the Outer Continental Shelf means insofar as the total impact upon our society and our environment are concerned, not only in California but throughout the country. I must point out one thing. In 1967 and 1968 which you referred to in your prepared remarks, we did not have a Coastal Zone Management Act then. We did not have the Ocean Policy Study and we did not have the attention of the Congress and the Nation and I think that this is very important, a very important difference.
I think Mr. Canfield's statement was so illuminating in this regard and particularly as it related to timing.
He pointed out that it would be a good number of years before there could be full production in the Outer Continental Shelf, assuming you went ahead now with the decision to exploit it to its maximum potential.
It does appear to me to be clear that it would be a great, great mistake at the very minimum for the Department of the Interior to go ahead with a leasing schedule prior to the time that the California Coastal Commission had had its plan prepared, finalized and approved by the Secretary of Commerce.
So, I would just like to say I am appreciative of the effort you have made to come down from Santa Barbara to be with us today.
Mrs. SIDENBERG. Thank you. Would it be your understanding that if the proposals that you have made as far as the adoption of the plan for the coastal area were concerned that there might be some reason then for the development of Exxon leases also in the Outer Continental Shelf in the Santa Barbara Channel that this could be used as an argument even though they have been approved by the Interior Department that it might be an argument to delay the actual carrying out or initiating of that development?
Senator TUNNEY. I do think so, yes. Certainly that is on the Outer Continental Shelf. Thank you very much. We are going to adjourn until 2 o'clock when we will take up the rest of the witnesses who appear on the witness list and any other statements that anyone desires to make from the public who are here and would like to be heard and have their statements included.
It certainly appears that before any tracts are put up for lease bids in the southern California OCS, these questions should be satisfactorily and factually answered by information acquired not only from the oil companies, but from independent experts. This information must be included in any Federal energy policy, and such a policy must be developed and approved prior to any future discussion of leasing in the California OCS. The Department of Interior is now soliciting participation by such organizations as ours in drafting an EIS for
And speaking of that defunct environmental monster, we urgently wing ask of you to strongly protest the invitation extended to the SST's English-French cousin, the Concorde, to land in Los Angeles on October 16.
Further, we ask you to request that the mayor's invitation be rescinded, especially on the grounds that the Concorde is the perfect but repugnant, example of the most inefficient and wasteful use of oil.
But let me proceed from this diversion to what I think is the central issue and in so doing, let me quote from the Ford Energy Policy Study, noting it's the Ford Foundation, not President Ford's.
The pace at which the Federal lands are opened can play a key role in determining the overall rate of energy growth, the mix of fuels, and the degree to which the nation must rely on imports. A policy of massive leasing of these resources-which is what the Government is now advocating both through administrative proclamation and through Senator Jackson's Energy Supply Act of 1974, although we praise you, Senator Tunney, for your amendments to that bill-would signal a future based on high rates of energy consumption. On the other hand, decisions to limit development of one or more of these resources, coupled with policies of energy conservation, could lead the Nation toward lower energy growth.
It is imperative, therefore, that the Federal Government make energy conservation a No. 1 priority in action, not just in speeches and one way to begin is to adopt a go-slow approach on offshore leasing.
And I would like to add with great emphasis that the less energy the United States consumes, the fewer the international problems we face. Promoting self-sufficiency through conservation would also encourage a more equitable distribution of the Earth's resources, since the United States presently represents 6 percent of the world population but consumes a third of the world's energy.
You, of course, Senator Tunney, have written on conservation programs, and while I realize that conservation is not the issue under discussion today, I do think it important to make a point or two about conservation as the most ecologically and economically sane way to generate enormous supplies of energy. The automobile is a fine example.
Again let me quote from the Ford energy policy study:
In 1958, the average American car got over 14 miles to the gallon; by 1973 the rate had dropped to less than 12.
The main reason has been the increase in auto weight. Fuel consumption and auto weight are directly related: A 5,000-pound car uses twice as much gasoline as a 2,500-pound car. Each model car has crept upward in weight over the years; 1974 intermediate size car, for example, weighs about the same as 1972 full sized models.
To require, then, that automobiles average 24 miles to the gallon rather than 12 could cut the automotive consumption of gasoline in half.
Here, I think we need to point out too, even if we ge ahead with offshore leasing today, it's going to take time before that program goes into full effect.
The same is true with this kind of conservation measure. We will not magically wave a wand and have the cars getting 24 mies to the gallon.
The start has to be made immediately and seriously.
Carpooling could make another considerable dent, and both these savings could be realized without curtailing the number of miles driven.
To go on:
Automobiles consumed an average 8,100 Btu's per passenger miles in urban travel in 1970 while urban mass transit consumed less than half that amount. Automobiles also carry about 85 percent of all intercity passenger traffic, while railroads and buses-the most energy-efficient modes-carry only 3 percent of the traffic. Airplanes consume even more energy per passenger mile than automobiles.
The conclusion from those statistics I believe is crystal clear about what kinds of programs government must encourage, plan, implement, and subsidize.
As far as the economics of conservation are concerned, the advice of a White House energy aide seems to have been forgotten: "You don't need a lot of money for conservation. The technology is on the shelf and the incentive is there."
But as another energy official has responded in disgust, "If you look at the way decisions are made on energy, we are willing to pay much more to create a barrel of oil than we are to save it."
Even the Office of Emergency Preparedness, before it was criticized and disbanded by Mr. Nixon, reported in 1972, according to the Los Angeles Times of February 24, 1974, that no less than 7.3 million barrels of oil a day-43 percent of current consumption and twothirds of projected oil imports could be lopped off the Nation's fuel use by 1980. Moreover, this could be done. . . . almost without pain to the industry or the average consumer. .. Beyond 1980, continuing efforts to improve fuel efficiency if begun now could almost flatten the overall energy consumption trend between now and the 1990's, holding the increase to 1 percent a year, according to the report. Unconstrained, the country's fuel appetite is expected to rise over 75 percent the next 20 years.
For the main reason, then, of redirecting Federal energy policy toward conservation rather than exploitation, restriction of offshore leasing seems necessary and prudent, especially when the need for this oil no longer appears urgent. But there are many other reasons to advocate, at minimum, a moratorium on development of the OCS development in southern California.
Most important, the work of the State coastal commission, as mandated by the majority of the voters in this state, has not been completed, and it is imperative that no leasing occur until this work is finished.
Second, by summer's end the Bureau of Land Management had not even awarded contracts for the gathering of baseline data; and for biological data in particular to be meaningful, it must be collected at least over the course of a full season for minimal information. Third, there seems to be little evidence that the technology of oil spill recovery is adequate.
In regard to spills, the Federal Government has acknowledged that there will be major spills from OCS development as well as many, many, minor spills and leaks.
Although public concern has focused largely on the major spill with its dramatic effect, biologists are beginning to discover that
the problems caused by oil on the sea are not limited to the immediate kill of birds, immediate toxicity to shallow-water marine life, the smothering of intertidal animals, the tainting of shellfish.
Work at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute has demonstrated that even 8 months after a spill near the shore in Massachusetts, oil constituents were still present in sediments, both inshore and offshore, and in marine organisms, including the commercially important clams. There was an initial massive kill of fish, shellfish, worms, crabs, and other invertebrates.
Trawls in 10 feet of water showed a 95 percent mortality. Repopulation had not occurred in 9 months. In fact the contamination spread beyond the area originally affected. The kill of shallow-water plants and animals reduced the stability of the marshland and sea bottom, and the increased erosion may be responsible for the spread of the pollution along the sea bottom.
In short, then, oil pollution may be much more serious than previously thought and poses a substantial threat to the food web upon which we are very dependent.
Aside from this kind of environmental impact, what social, economic, and environmental effects will offshore development have onshore?
One attempted trade off already revealed will be to surrender the proposed Channel Islands National Park to the oil industry for supply bases, crude oil processing, communication and transportation bases, and field headquarters.
Another significant impact onshore may be deleterious effects on the recreational resources of an area greatly dependent on its beachesboth as a relief valve for a dense and polluted urban center, which is drastically lacking in significant parkland and open space, and as an asset upon which an important tourist industry is based.
I might say at a previous hearing the Mexican-American community joined us in talking about the offshore development, saying they felt that this kind of development was a serious threat to the recreational resources for their community as well.
So far BLM has remained mum on environmental impact, but when this agency does report, how comprehensive an assessment can we expect, considering the lack of adequate time for a thorough investigation of impacts, offshore and onshore, measured in social, economic, and environmental costs. [We must also note that much of the information for the environmental impact statements will come from the oil industry.]
Finally, shouldn't the people who live in California have a major voice in deciding if the final price of OCS development off our coast is too high a one to pay?
We think so.
In summary, it seems that as California goes on this offshore leasing program, so goes the Nation in its policy on energy and conservation in the future. We can either go ahead with an acceleration of business as usual and the environment be damned. Or we can demand a national energy program based on energy conservation and on a thorough investigation and judgment of the impacts of all possible alternatives, which in the long run will benefit all the peoples of the world.
We should have named Project Independence. "Interdependence. Senator TUNNEY. Thank you very much. Yours was an interesting statement. I agree with you that it is tragie that we have not looked az the problem of offshore oil development from the point of view of all the interrelated factors that impact upon a decision to go ahead and the resulting effect on the quality of life in southern California, assuming that the decision is made to go ahead.
Although I think if a decision is made to go ahead, it may mean certain people, in the sense they will have oil to burn, it can't help but have adverse impact on those of us who live in the southern California
It would be much better if there were no development whatsoever. I would like to get to some specifics though with you. One of the things that you mentioned about the oil spill-Wood Hole Oceanographie Institute studied off Massachusetts. Even 8 months after the spill occurred, there was substantial impact upon the ecology of the area.
I was wondering if you had any information with respect to the impact of the Santa Barbara spill? A number of scientists here in California say there was no harm caused by the Santa Barbara blowout. Do you have evidence on the matter?
MS. ERIKSEN. The difference in the studies on the west coast and the east coast is that new tools are being used in the investigation.
Ignorance is bliss. If you can't see or investigate or somehow find adverse effects, then you can't report them. At the Woods Hole study, I understand it was chromotography which was the deciding factor which made the difference in the total assessment.
In other words, the scientists doing that study had additional tools in their hands to allow an assessment that wasn't done after the Santa Barbara blowout.
Senator TUNNEY. The staff just mentioned to me that apparently the oil industry has pilloried the scientists that did the Woods Hole study. I wonder if there has been any independent checking aside from the Woods Hole study which has ratified conclusions which were made by the Woods Hole study?
Ms. ERIKSEN. I do not know off the top of my head.
Senator TUNNEY. I would like to know precisely the position of the Sierra Club with respect to the issue that is before us and that is Outer Continental Shelf leasing. Is it your position that there never should be any drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf forever, or is it that you are seeking input to the decisional process so that your perspec tives can be considered and that you would have an opportunity after the coastal commission has completed its study, to weigh all the various components that are going to go into making up a final decision.
MS. ERIKSEN. I have appended to my statement the national policy of the Sierra Club on offshore development. We are not in total opposition to all OCS development. That would be an untenable position in today's world. On this particular program we have reserved final judgment until we see the final environmental impact statement. We think certain prerequisites should be met before the sale is effected and the policy statement goes into some detail on those prerequisites.
No. 1, of course, would be implementation of the State coastal commission work. The gathering of baseline data is essential, and I was really appalled to learn that BLM was proceeding with the sale and