Page images
PDF
EPUB

because of the difficulty in evaluating the conflicting solutions which have been proposed to abate the energy crisis.

Each of the self-proclaimed experts has his own ideas about solving the energy crisis. But seldom is there agreement among the experts. Secretary Morton in recent testimony pointed to the paradoxes which policy makers must face in their attempts to find solutions to the current energy crisis. He commented:

We know that our energy crisis message is getting across to some segments of the public and private sectors. Advice has been plentiful from the conservationists, from industry, from the consumers, and even from some of the 61 departments and agencies of our government who in some way have an input into our energy policy. This advice taken together has said:

Give us an energy policy that is intelligent and concise and, above all, responsive to the interests of the nation as a whole.

Give us a policy that can apply to the short-term and to the longer term as well. Give us an energy policy, they say, that will provide the consumer with the type of fuel he wants, in the amounts he needs, at the time he must have it, and at the lowest possible price.

Assure us this energy will be from secure and reliable sources. But don't drill offshore of my coastline, don't build any pipelines across my land, don't strip mine any coal, don't build any refineries or storage facilities in my area. abolish the oil import program but don't move oil in by tankers for this might pollute our waters.

Give us an energy policy that guarantees protection of the environment, where the use of energy does not intrude upon our esthetic values nor damage the ecology of the land.

Give us an energy policy that will maximize national security yet not impinge upon normal trade between Nations.

So much, for the time being, on the fact that the energy crisis is controversial. I expect that Secretary Loesch in his testimony this morning will further confirm that fact.

Now, I would like to return briefly to the contention that the energy crisis is complicated.

U.S. demand for energy has doubled in the past 20 years from 34 quadrillion B.t.u.'s in 1950 to about 69 quadrillion B.t.u.'s as of 1970.

Demand is causing great strains on supply. The quantitative contribution of natural gas has more than tripled while petroleum use has doubled. Yet while production of oil and gas has been on the rise the reserve-production ratio of these fuels has been seriously declining. Improvements in the efficiency of petroleum resource recovery have been slow in coming.

Nuclear power, while beginning to grow rapidly, now amounts to little more than a percentage point in measurements of energy supply. Hydropower has remained nearly constant relative to other fuels mainly because of the fact that we have nearly exhausted our potential sources of that medium of power.

Coal, while remaining our most abundant resource, has also remained level in recent years relative to other fuels due to a number of factors including the constraining influences of environmental, health, and safety laws.

All the while demands for more energy continue to grow. Many factors, however, have restricted the availabilities of supplies. The recent report submitted by the Interior Department to the Congress pursuant to the Mining and Minerals Policy Act listed several factors. contributing to the problem:

Domestic demand for petroleum and natural gas already substantially exceeds readily available domestic productive capacity;

85-197-73-2

Expropriations, confiscations, and forced modifications of agreements in foreign countries already have had adverse consequences regarding sources of petroleum supply, prices for foreign oil, stability of trade, U.S. revenues and the balance of payments situation;

Increasing dependence on foreign sources of petroleum supplies places increasing constraints upon the conduct of U.S. foreign policy and at the same time threatens the stability of the U.S. economy;

Investment in development of domestic energy resources is falling behind;

Environmental regulations threaten major disruptions of some domestic production;

Actual and prospective withdrawals of land available for prospecting and exploration may adversely affect domestic mineral development;

Fundamental research affecting mineral production and use is being cut back when instead it should be expanding.

These are but a few of the contributing factors to the present energy crisis listed in the Interior Department report.

There are many other factors including the need for improved energy conservation measures, a capital requirements crunch, tax policy, anti-trust policy, an anti-industry mood perpetuated by an untimely youthful rebellion against capitalism and competition within a free enterprise climate.

I mention these factors, because although we are narrowing our focus today to the issues most directly relevant to our consideration of Federal leasing policy regarding energy resources on public lands, we should not lose a sense of context linking such policy considerations to other important factors bearing upon finding solutions to this pressing energy crisis.

By way of example, the public lands have for years been a favorite source of Federal revenues, other than income taxes, for the Office of Management and Budget, and its predecessors. Little serious thought has been given by OMB to the relationship of its present policy of maximizing Federal revenues from leasing public lands for energy resource development to the effect such policy has in stimulating research related to improved recovery methods.

Little thought has been given to the long-range consequences in terms of a national energy policy of short-term increased Treasury receipts.

Mr. Chairman, these are some of the issues that I hope this committee will objectively explore in its considerations of federal leasing policy in the context of the much broader energy crisis.

Senator Moss. Thank you, Senator Hansen, for that very comprehensive and knowledgeable statement showing the depth of the problem that faces our country and our government in dealing with the growing demands for energy.

At the same time we are confronted with new constraints on environmental degredation and other matters which impinge upon it and it does pose a great, great problem that we recently have been spending so much time on in this committee trying to assemble the record and make ourselves familiar with the problem so that if congressional action is needed we will be able to move promptly to do what needs to be done to minimize the conflicts that we see before us.

Our witness today will be Assistant Secretary of the Interior Harrison Loesch who is in charge of Public Land Management of the Federal Government.

Secretary Loesch has appeared before this committee on several occasions and has for the past 311⁄2 years been very effectively administering the Public Lands Division of the Department of the Interior. So we are very pleased to have you, Secretary Loesch. If you would identify the gentlemen that accompany you and then proceed, we would appreciate it.

STATEMENT OF HON. HARRISON LOESCH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY MIKE HARVEY, CHIEF, DIVISION OF LEGISLATION; DALE ZIMMERMAN, ACTING CHIEF, DIVISION OF UPLAND MINERALS; JOHN SPRAGUE, CHIEF, DIVISION OF OFFSHORE MINERALS

Mr. LOESCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am accompanied this morning by Mr. Mike Harvey, Chief of the Legislative Division of the Bureau of Land Management, Mr. Dale Zimmerman, Acting Chief of the Upland Minerals Division of the Bureau, and Mr. John Sprague, who is the Chief of the Offshore Minerals Division.

Senator Moss. We are pleased that you have these gentlemen with you and we may want to direct some questions to them.

Mr. LOESCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the Department of the Interior to discuss the Department's leasing and disposal policies for energy resources on the public lands.

We appreciate the concern expressed by the Senate over national energy policy which prompted it to adopt Senate Resolution 45 authorizing a national fuels and energy policy study.

We are glad to be able to assist you in your deliberations and are looking forward to the study report which we are sure will be useful to us in carrying out our responsibilities.

President Nixon expressed his concern over our national energy supply last year in his clean energy message of June 4, 1971. As the President pointed out, "a plentiful supply of energy is something the American people have taken very much for granted... But the assumption that sufficient energy will always be readily available has been brought sharply into question within the last year." The President proposed a broad program designed to insure an adequate supply of clean energy for the years ahead.

The Department of the Interior has a vital role in carrying out the President's program, which is designed to assure that energy resources are developed in a manner consistent with preservation of environmental quality.

A major part of this responsibility is exercised as part of our management of the public lands.

As you are well aware, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, the Department has the direct responsibility for management of

more than 500 million acres of public lands including public domain, national parks, and wildlife refuges.

The energy resources in most of these lands can be leased under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 or the Acquired Land Leasing Act of

1947.

The Department also leases energy resources under these two acts which are found on Federal lands administered by other agencies, principally the Forest Service and the Department of Defense.

In addition, the Department is responsible for management of all mineral resources on the Outer Continental Shelf.

These lands are becoming an increasingly important source of energy resources. In addition to traditional sources such as oil and gas, and coal, we are expanding our programs to include geothermal steam and oil shale.

A number of agencies within the Department of the Interior are involved in energy resource matters. Those directly concerned with leasing and disposal policies on the public lands are the Bureau of Land Management and the Geological Survey.

We understand that you are also concerned about Indian lands. We believe that since these are privately owned lands which are held in trust by the Department for the owners-the Indian people-that these should be treated separately.

For this reason, in preparing our answers to the comprehensive issues and questions which you submitted to the Department on May 17, we will provide a separate response for Indian lands.

You indicated that you would like us to discuss today the general issues set forth in attachment "A" to your May 17 letter.

I believe the best way for me to do this would be to take up the questions one by one and give you our answers.

From here on, Mr. Chairman, I intend to briefly run through this. My statement is some 50 pages long with the comprehensive answers to the questions in that attachment, and I do not intend to burden the committee by reading the entire statement, which was only furnished. to you, I am sorry to say, this morning. I will go through the questions. briefly, if that is satisfactory to you, Mr. Chairman.

(The text of the full statement appears at the end of the oral presentation.)

Senator Moss. That will be satisfactory.

The entire statement, of course will be reproduced in the record as though read in full and we will be pleased to have you give us abbreviated answers where that is possible to do so.

Mr. LOESCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The first question, which deals with the energy resources on the public lands which (a) are now, or (b) could be, made available in the foreseeable future, as a major element in the Nation's energy supply.

Oil, gas, coal, uranium, and waterpower are available on the public lands; and, oil shale, tar sands, and geothermal resources will be available in the foreseeable future.

The rest of the answer to question one elaborates on that statement with various statistics as to percentage of energy supply and so on. Question two, which deals with the principal goals and objectives of the Government with respect to management of each resource, and then some subheads.

Addressing the question first, the Department of the Interior's major goals and objectives with respect to the management of the publicly owned mineral resources are:

(1) To assure orderly and timely resource development;

(2) To protect the environment;

(3) To insure the public a fair market value return on the disposition of its resources.

(a) Each of the above goals and objectives is based on legal mandate. They are contained within.

The answer to subhead "a" sets out all of the major acts under which we operate in this area.

Frankly, there is no area which is adopted at the full discretion of the Department. All of the goals and objectives are covered in one way or another by one or more of the acts.

(b) To what extent is each goal or objective compatible with other objectives for the management of individual resources? For example, how are encouragement of current development, conservation of supplies for future use, and maximization of Government revenues reconciled?

Of course here we have one of the gut questions in the whole issue that you as a committee are now studying. They are not necessarily, however that these goals and objectives-mutually incompatible. We try to obtain an optimum balance among the three. We must leave to your judgment how near we obtain that objective.

Subsection C of question 2, what is the basis for any differences in goals or objectives with respect to different energy resources?

The answer to that is that there are no basic differences in goals and objectives. Those goals apply equally to all of the various energy resources and they form the declaration of policy in the administration's proposed revision of the Mineral Leasing Act submitted last

year.

(d) To what extent do the goals and objectives of the principal legal authorities under which individual energy resources are managed require review to determine if they are consistent with today's energy requirements and environmental goals?

In brief response to that I may say that the OCS Lands Act requires review to examine the multiple-use responsibilities of the Department with regard to such items as erection of supertanker ports, rights-ofway for purposes other than oil and gas such as telephone transmission lines and third, the positive management of historic, scientific, and other potential multiple-use sites.

The mining and leasing acts require amendment to more clearly define the management responsibilities of the Department.

These clarifications are outlined in the administration's proposed Mineral Leasing Act, the Mined Area Protection Act, National Resource Land Management Act, and the mining law.

Question 3. How do you relate the Mining and Minerals Policy Act to Department of Interior policy regarding Federal leasing of energy minerals?

Answer 3. The Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Public Law 91-631, concisely enunciates and sets forth the national minerals policy. That act sets forth what should be a national minerals policy. The responsibility for carrying out the policy is assigned to the Sec

« PreviousContinue »