The state strongly supports the federal establishment of marine sanctuaries on OCS lands. Such a policy would also hold the resources of the continental shelf as reserves to meet future national energy needs. Governor Egan suggested this in his December 1971 letter to Under Secretary Pecora : "Another highly important consideration that I believe should be a matter for immediate evaluation by our Nation's National Security Council deals with the overall question of the wisdom of petroleum development on Federal offshore lands at the present time. Given the projection of further petroleum product needs by the United States, I am convinced that the petroleum resources of Federal offshore submerged lands throughout the Gulf of Alaska area as well as off all other coast lines of the United States should be held in reserve as energy and money in the bank, until all other petroleum resource reserves of the states and Federal Government have been fully developed." Hon. ROGERS C. B. MORTON, ATTACHMENT No. 1 NOVEMBER 9, 1971. Interior Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SECRETARY MORTON: As chief executive for the State of Alaska, I am requesting that you indefinitely suspend the leasing of outer continental shelf lands in the Gulf of Alaska for oil development. I understand that the Bureau of Land Management has tentatively scheduled the offering of such leases for mid-1972. My reason for requesting this action is the very substantial danger which offshore drilling and production in this particular area will pose for Alaska's marine environment and its living resources. The waters of the Gulf of Alaska are more than frequently extremely stormy, and it is a known area of high seismic activity. The ability of present offshore production technology to adequately cope with these factors is seriously questioned. Because the State of Alaska has an established fishing industry absolutely dependent upon an unimpaired marine ecology, and a direct responsibility to its citizens to prevent the pollution of their territorial waters, we find the risks unacceptably high in the Gulf of Alaska. I am confident that at a future time, technology will have progressed to a point where Gulf of Alaska offshore oil production procedures will be reasonably compatible with environmental concerns. But, I am convinced that thinking of such an enterprise utilizing presently known techniques would be an abrogation of our obligation to insure a safe operation. An early response from you on this question would be greatly appreciated. I have the responsibility for pursuing alternative courses of action in this matter in a timely fashion should this appeal fail. Warmest personal regards, and good wishes to your staff. WILLIAM A. EGAN, Governor. ATTACHMENT No. 2 DECEMBER 16, 1971. Hon. WILLIAM T. PECORA, Under Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, DEAR MR. PECORA: Thank you for your reply to my letter of November 9, 1971, in which I urged indefinite suspension of any plans for leasing outer Gulf of Alaska submerged lands for oil development. While I was gratified to learn from your letter of December 2, 1971, that your Department has made no decision to move forward with such endeavor, I am concerned with the apparent indication that positive steps might be taken by the Federal Government to proceed at a relatively early time. Recent news items on the press wires indicate that such plans may in fact be under way. As conveyed in my earlier letter, the State of Alaska has grave concern with respect to industry's technological ability to adequately cope with safety problems involved in the beyond Territorial water limits of the Gulf of Alaska. As you know, all outer areas of the Gulf of Alaska are "wild waters," so to speak. Vicious storms with attendant hurricane-like winds and extremely harsh seas are regular occurrences throughout the entire perimeter of the North Pacific Ocean. Let us take Cook Inlet, for example. Comparing the hazards and ferocity of storms offshore in the Gulf of Alaska with problems that may have been encountered from the standpoint of industrial operation safety in Cook Inlet would be akin to comparing storms along the Potomac River to storm hazards that regularly occur in the North Atlantic Ocean. I am convinced that Gulf of Alaska petroleum industry exploration and development is fraught with far too many dangers with respect to the rich marine life environment that exists there, together with the safety risks involved with regard to the manpower that would be necessary to man the projects, to take a chance on leasing such submerged lands in the foreseeable future. It might very well be that in andher decade, science and industry together may have devised safe methods of development that will overcome what I firmly believe to be lack of positive capability to cope with the risky violence of offshore storms. Another highly important consideration that I believe should be a matter for immediate evaluation by our Nation's National Security Council deals with the overall question of the wisdom of petroleum development on Federal offshore lands at the present time. Given the projection of future petroleum product needs by the United States, I am convinced that the petroleum resources of Federal offshore submerged lands throughout the Gulf of Alaska area as well as off all other coast lines of the United States should be held in reserve as energy and money in the bank, until all other petroleum resource reserves of the states and Federal Government have been fully developed. I would appreciate an early response to the concerns expressed in this letter. Kindest personal regards and good wishes to you and your staff for a joyous : holiday season. Sincerely, WILLIAM A. EGAN, Governor. ATTACHMENT No. 3 Original sponsor: Hammond. Referred: Rules. IN THE SENATE BY THE RESOURCES COMMITTEE CS FOR SENATE BILL No. 2, IN THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA, SEVENTH LEGISLATURE, FIRST SESSION A BILL For an Act entitled: "An Act relating to limitations upon oil and gas leases in certain areas.' Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Alaska: SECTION 1. AS 38.05.140 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (f) The submerged and shorelands lying north of 57°, 30 minutes north latitude and east of 159°, 49 minutes west longitude within the Bristol Bay drainage are designated as the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve. Within the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve no surface entry permit to develop an oil or gas lease may be issed on state owned or controlled lands until the legislature by appropriate resolution shall specifically find that such entry shall not constitute danger to the fishery. SUBMISSION OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA STATE OF LOUISIANA, Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: Thank you for affording me an opportunity to comment on policies concerning the Outer Continental Shelf now being reviewed by your committee. Attached is our statement with our views listed in alphabetical order, with the exception of answers D-1 through J-2, which express parallel State procedures to Federal. They are generally responsive to those matters set out in your letter of April 14, 1972, to then Governor John J. McKeithen. I say "generally responsive" because we have been somewhat selective in our answers to the questions propounded. We have, in fact, attempted to confine our efforts to matters about which we feel we have developed experience and knowledge which should benefit your committee. Many of the problems have been adequately defined and explored by others who have previously appeared before you with whom we dealt perfunctorily. Those matters on which we elaborated reflect the views and consensus of Louisiana citizens and State professions who have the experience and discernment to cope with our complex coastal problems. I earnestly invite your attention to the views expressed. On a final note, we firmly believe in multi-use of our coastal area and the resolution of problems arising from competing interests by cooperation and State supervision rather than outright ban of activity. Sincerely yours, EDWIN EDWards. STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA REGARDING OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF POLICIES Question A-5. What additional changes in the existing legal regime or Federat organizational structure merit Congressional consideration and review? Answer. At least two major problems long held in abeyance must be faced when the litigation between the United States and the State of Louisiana is settled and the coastline of the State and its seaward boundary fixed. Background It is necessary to trace a bit of the history of the Louisiana Tidelands dispute to understand how these problems could be tolerated in former years without any need for an organizational entity or particular legal regime to deal with them. Now the legal construct of the dispute has changed with the result that problems long swept under the rug must be brought forth and made the subject of careful study and action. The two major problems we refer to are the ambulatory boundary question and the matter of conservation regulation, especially the formation of units to avoid the drilling of unnecessary wells in offshore Louisiana near the boundary between State and Federal jurisdiction. In the mid-1950's, the dispute between the State of Louisiana and the United States resulted in a total shut-down of the oil and gas offshore industry. The Supreme Court issued an injunction against both parties preventing any leasing or drilling pending an agreement between the governments. A agreement resulted and was used to partially lift the injunction; it is known as the 1956 Interim Agreement. Under it, the submerged lands of offshore Louisiana were divided into four zones. Zone 1 consisted of a three-mile belt measured from the so-called Chapman Line (a line drawn in 1950 to represent the Federal coastline claim). Zone 1 was recognized as within Louisiana jurisdiction. Zones 2 and 3 comprised the disputed area, with Zone 4 consisting of submerged lands clearly recognized as Federal. The result of this arrangement was that as an accidental matter, a large buffer zone existed, a sort of "no man's land", that was to be either jointly administered, or as in Zone 2, not developed or leased at all except to prevent drainage. Consequently, minor, even substantial, changes in the coastline were not likely to pose serious title risks since oil company leaseholders had lease title protection in the buffer zones under the Interim Agreement. Jeopardy to oil or gas leasing or development due to investment insecurity associated with changing coastline was thus incidentally avoided as a result of the coastline dispute. Also, since no leases could be granted in Zone 2, except under very limited circumstances, the opportunity for drainage and off-set problems to occur has been greatly minimized over the sixteen years that the Interim Agreement has been in effect. The result is that when the litigation is resolved, either entirely or in large part, as is imminent, the buffer effect will disappear. Not a broad disputed zone, but a line will divide the properties that are now declared to be clearly federal or clearly State by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has held that Louisiana has a right to territorial gains which result from accretion. Studies during the 1950's, sponsored by the Mississippi River Commission, showed the tremendously increased flow of the Atchafalaya River during the 20th Century with an enormously enhanced sediment load. It was predicted that the increased sediments would, starting sometime during the 1970's, build a delta land mass projecting 50 miles seaward into the Gulf of Mexico. We speak of a major new land mass that is to grow outward from the mouth of the lower Atchafalaya River through Atchafalaya Bay and into the Gulf of Mexico. Several hundred square miles of land will be added to the State and Nation, according to the best geological minds in this country. Technical consultants who have visited the area have seen new land building in the Atchafalaya Bay area. Already, an inland system of lakes some forty miles long and five or six miles wide, has been filled with sediments. Now the sediment flow that filled the lakes is being carried down to the bay and into the Gulf. This will not only project a great new land mass at the mouth of the Atchafalaya, but geologists has informed us that many of these sediments will be swept westward. Land growth will occur along substantial segments of the western Louisiana coast. The State of Louisiana lost hundreds of square miles of land during the 20th Century according to studies of the Louisiana Coastal Studies Institute, principally because of activities of various federal agencies. For example, the Army Engineers closed off Bayou Lafourche in 1904 and did major engineering works in the Mississippi Delta which have prevented natural land building forces from balancing land destruction forces such as subsidence and erosion. We are at a moment in time when the major losses to be suffered by these works of the federal government have been suffered, and Louisiana is about to experience, during the 1970's and 1980's, major land building phenomena which should partially offset the severe boundary and land loss inequities it has silently suffered over past decades. Therefore, any approach to resolution of these problems based merely upon a "Let's freeze the boundary" solution would be overly simplistic. However, we do not rule out the appropriateness of considering such an approach in studies to ascertain alternative salutions to the problem of ambulatory boundaries and related title and unitization complexities. The State of Louisiana will, under the present administration commence studies of potential solutions to these problems. We think until such studies are completed, the Congress should not precipitately act on the ambulatory boundary problem. The Congress should, however, be informed of the existence of this little known and less considered matter of great magnitude. It is, indeed, a matter of tremendous magnitude that cannot be appreciated adequately by those who are familiar only with small rivers and small river actions. We have in Louisiana the mouth of one of the greatest rivers in the world which over the centuries has changed from place to place and created the most unique and complex of coastal environs. Neither the Courts nor the Congress have heretofore adequately provided for the singular circumstances which result from the peculiar geological and ecological realities of the Louisiana coast. Too often these were treated as though it were appropriate to lump the coastal problems of Louisiana with those of other coastal States. Many extraordinary events testify to the singular character of our coast. In 1837, the Mississippi flooded its banks at Venice and opened a cut known as The Jump, which build more than one hundred square miles of land into the Gulf of Mexico. At another time, the daughter of a French fisherman known as Baptiste Collette cut a little two foot pirogue canal which the river quickly enlarged and used to build scores of square miles of land into the Gulf. Elsewhere, as bayous were closed artificially or naturally, great masses of lands have fallen back into the Gulf. So, when we speak of the big changes that are coming at the Atchafalaya Bay and which will continue to occur in the Mississippi Delta, there is much in our coastal history that supports this prognosis. Ambulatory Boundary Recommendations But what does this have to do with the question of whether there is a need for change in the existing legal regime or federal organizational structure? We think it indicates that the problem of the ambulatory boundary is so large, so complex and so fraught with need to carefully consider the equities as they may relate to many problems, that there should be special and substantial study by both the federal and State governments to ascertain appropriate changes in law and administrative structures. Many matters are affected: revenue sharing, title security for the oil and gas industry to protect and encourage investments, relationship to unitization to reduce the number of wells that would otherwise have to be drilled, future jurisdictional needs other than for oil and gas development over the great new Atchafalaya Delta, ecological and economic impact, and planning for resource utilization of the great new swamp lands to be built, and legal problems of avoiding future State-federal conflict. We plan to seek the cooperation of affected State agencies and scientific and legal specialists in Louisiana to consider these problems and, after appropriate technical studies, to seek cooperation with federal agencies in developing recommendations to the Congress for its consideration and review. In our judgment, the Congress should in the meantime support studies to deal with this matter. However, the technical character of the problem, its uniqueness to the Louisiana situation and the greater intensity of oil and gas development along the Louisiana coastal zone warrants that this matter be intensively studied separately from the broad hearings dealing with the Outer Continental Shelf problems of the entire United States coast. In short, it is our recommendation to this Committee that it recommend that further hearings be held specially dealing with the highly changeable character of the Louisiana coast and the ambulatory problem posed by the Supreme Court's 1969 decision in United States rs. Louisiana, if negotiations between the Executive Branches of the Louisiana and the federal governnent do not result in early resolution of the problem. Conservation Problems and Recommendations Sound oil and gas conservation regulation is required for many reasons: to prevent inequities in the development of oil and gas properties; to minimize adverse ecological impact; to maximize recovery of important resources in the most practical and economic fashion. It is in the interest of the industry and the public to have no more drilling than is necessary to efficiently and economically drain these underground resources. The Louisiana Mineral Board and the Louisiana Department of Conservation, in their dealings with counterpart federal agencies, have always sought to cooperate fully in the development of unitization agreements or other plans for development of resources along boundaries. They have sought to encourage efficient and economical development that would yet serve the equitable interests of each government participating in revenues from pools that might underlie both sides of a boundary or potential boundary. The experience has been less than satisfactory. The federal government refuses to negotiate at higher levels and insists upon having negotiations conducted by low level officials subject to one-sided review by higher federal authority. Consequently, any understanding by Louisiana officials with federal officials can seldom be relied upon and years later may be reversed by the higher federal authority. Louisiana is unable to obtain direct negotiation between higher State and federal authorities. Years are consumed and still agreement is not reached in final form on the few locales where development has been at the edge of and on both sides of the Zone 1-Zone 2 boundary. In December of 1971, great stretches of the Louisiana coast were adjudicated by the Supreme Court on one side of the line and we expect that a decree will be rendered this year adjudicating title on the other side of the line, causing clearly adjudicated State-federal areas to bound each other with the multiplication of drainage, off-set and unitization problems that are sure to develop. A quasi-adjudicative agency should be established, with joint federal-State representation thereon to create a mechanism for Louisiana to have "its day in Court" on unitization and conservation problems. Otherwise, the absence of agreement and interminable years of unsuccessful negotiation is apt to be repeated at scores of locations along the Louisiana coast with great injury to the State of Louisiana that could only be rectified by the State making demands upon its mineral lessees to drill wells to off-set wells on the federal side of the line. These were the very problems that, in the early days of the oil industry, caused lands to be peppered with derricks unnecessarily and with tremendous economic and geologic waste. Louisiana believes that if the federal officials responsible for unit negotiations know that there is an independent agency or an independent arbiter available to fairly and objectively consider the claims of the State as to geologic and petroleum engineering problems affecting unit questions, these federal officials will be more apt to promptly agree on reasonable voluntary plans for units Actual resort to hearings before such an adjudicative body might well prove unnecessary in most instances. If equity cannot be served by the creation of such a body to either arbitrate or adjudicate adversary proceedings between State and federal technical agencies. the result will be an unfortunate proliferation of unnecessary wells, financial burdens on the industry and higher prices for oil and gas. However, again this 85-197 O 7321 |