research-social, economic, legal, and political aspects for effective coastal zone management. H.R. 2493 provides the mechanism and necessary authority to the Governor of the State for orderly development of plans and sound management practices. Section 307 authorizes the Secretary to underwrite coastal State bond issues or loans for the purposes of land and water development and restoration projects. Section 312 is one of the most important features of the bill, as it provides authority to the State to set aside estuarine sanctuaries as field laboratories and act as a data arm for the coastal zone management. It authorizes the Secretary to make grants of up to 50 percent of the costs not to exceed $2 million of acquisition, development, and operation of estuarine sanctuaries for field laboratories. Section 313 requires Federal agencies conducting or supporting activities in the coastal and estuarine zone to develop their activities consistent with the approved State management plan and program. Since the inception of the Coastal States Organization, CSO, the State of Alaska has worked closely with other coastal States in reviewing all coastal zone legislation and in making legislative recommendations. The State of Alaska has been represented on the executive committee of the Coastal States Organization by Dr. Y. R. Nayudu. The Coastal States Organization has carefully reviewed and endorsed the provisions of an identical measure, Senate bill 582. Therefore, we feel that H.R. 2493, the House version of S. 582, is most acceptable. Needless to say, wisely planned comprehensive coastal zone management legislation is an immediate necessity for the Nation and it is essential for the orderly development of the State of Alaska. Alaska's administrative and legislative branches have already taken several important steps in all these matters. Two years ago, Alaska established a Commission for Ocean Advancement Through Science and Technology. The purpose of this commission is to develop and maintain an orderly plan for long-range conservation of marine and coastal resources and to insure the wise use of these resources in the total public interest. The State legislature passed a joint resolution, H.J.R. 108AM, requesting the establishment of an estuarine research center at Douglas, Alaska. A copy is enclosed. This year Alaska has taken a big step in creating a new department of environmental conservation, which will play a vital role in developing the coastal zone plans and programs. A copy of this bill is enclosed. We in Alaska sincerely hope that judicious judgment by this august body will prevail and accelerate the momentum already gathered this past year by the untiring efforts of this subcommittee and the newly formed Coastal States Organization by quickly passing this muchneeded legislation. The State of Alaska is deeply concerned that further delay on enactment of this coastal zone legislation would be detrimental to the interests of wise coastal zone management in our Nation. The longer we delay, the greater and more costly will be the problems. Mr. LENNON. Doctor, just for the record, you so identified yourself in your statement, but you are a member of the executive committee of the Coastal States Organization? Dr. NAYUDU. Yes, sir. Mr. LENNON. And the Coastal States Organization has carefully reviewed and endorsed the provisions of S. 582, which is identical to this H.R. 2493, except for the fact that H.R. 2493 incorporates the provisions of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Solid Waste Disposal Provisions Act. I would assume that the Coastal States Organization would prefer the inclusion of the criteria under the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Would that be a fair assumption? Dr. NAYUDU. It would be, sir, but we had no opportunity to review H.R. 9229. Mr. LENNON. The latest bill, 9229, incorporates everything that is in the bill 2493, and includes in addition thereto the section related to marine sanctuaries which everyone agrees is inextricably tied to the coastal zone management. That is the reason it was put in there for consideration, because there had never been any hearings on marine sanctuaries when it was put into the Ocean Dumping bill, no record at all and no hearings, and we felt the only chance to consider it was to put it in this bill because it was so tied to and part of the philosophy of coastal zone management. Mr. Karth? Mr. KARTH. No questions. Mr. LENNON. Mr. Mosher? Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Chairman, we hear so much discussion about the proposed pipeline to transmit oil across Alaska and deliver it to the sea, and then the plans for big tankers to carry it back and forth. To what extent would that proposal come within the jurisdiction of this legislation, if at all? Would this legislation affect in any way that very controversial subject? Dr. NAYUDU. It is controversial, but, as I see it personally, it will have a lot of strength and capability for the State administration to build up very strong programs and to monitor them very much more effectively as under section 313 you have the State taking the leading role, and this would give us the opportunity to deal with some of these problems. Mr. MOSHER. You are suggesting that the State of Alaska would welcome our approval of this legislation because it would give you additional authority and jurisdiction over this pipeline proposal? Dr. NAYUDU. But in general it gives more authority to deal with our coastal zone problems. Mr. MOSHER. Well, is the pipeline potentially a coastal zone problem? Dr. NAYUDU. In pact, I suppose. Mr. LENNON. Just for the record at this point approximately there are 70,000 miles of coastline in this country; is that right? And Alaska has approximately about half, 35,000 miles of coastline. Certainly the projected construction of this pipeline will affect a substantial part of the coastline of Alaska; will it not, and the coastal zones. Dr. NAYUDU. That is right. We feel we have to do our homework and develop programs in view of this. Mr. LENNON. Mr. Forsythe? Mr. FORSYTHE. No questions. Mr. LENNON. Counsel may have questions of the doctor. Mr. HEYWARD. Is there any language that you would suggest here that would strengthen the points which you made? In particular I am thinking about section 313 of H.R. 9229, which provides for a Federal management plan in the areas outside of State jurisdiction. I am sure the committee would be happy to receive that after you have had a chance to review any suggestions for language that might insure that any Federal management program outside of the State jurisdiction will be coordinated and complementary to the State program within the State's jurisdiction. Dr. NAYUDU. Well, sir, I feel that is a very important aspect, and I will have an opportunity to review this as soon as I go back, and send you the written comments on this. Mr. HEYWARD. I am sure the chairman would like to have you do what he asked Governor Carter to do, that is on behalf of the Governor of Alaska, to send a letter to the committee discussing the new sections of 9229 with your comments and any suggestions pertaining thereto and any other language changes which you believe would strengthen the other sections that are presently in 2493. Dr. NAYUDU. I will be happy to do it. Mr. LENNON. Doctor, one other observation. How many members are there of the executive committee of the Coastal States Organization? Dr. NAYUDU. How many members? Mr. LENNON. You say you are a member of the executive committe of the Coastal States Organization. How many members are there, one from each State? Dr. NAYUDU. No, the executive committee consists of the chairman, Dr. Hargis, from Virginia, and members from South Carolina, Massachusetts, Alaska, and California. Mr. LENNON. The executive committee of the Coastal States Organization? Dr. NAYUDU. Also, I would like to add Louisiana, Georgia, Florida, and Pennsylvania—a total of nine States represented on the executive committee. Dr. LENNON. Nine executive members. I assume, gentlemen, that this executive committee speaking for the Coastal States Organization will give us its explicit views on the legislation, and I assume that you are saying here today that you speak for the executive committee, Doctor, is that right? Dr. NAYUDU. Well, I am speaking for the State of Alaska. Mr. LENNON. I appreciate that, but I think this committee is entitled to the expression of opinion of at least the executive committee speaking for the Coastal States. I would like for you to take back to the executive committee a request from me verbally that we would like a resolution from the executive committee, signed by the members of the executive committee, expressing their views on H.R. 2493, and more particularly on H.R. 9229, which is identical to H.R. 2493, except for the addition of the title related to marine sanctuaries. I would like to have your expression of the executive committee with respect to the inclusion in H.R. 9229 of the section related to marine sanctuaries. I think we ought to have that in the record so that when we go to the floor we can state that we do have in the record a definitive, objective endorsement of the executive committee speaking for the Coastal States, and I say the Coastal States include the Great Lakes States. Thank you very much, Doctor. I want to express my appreciation for the Coastal States Organization and for the concern, interest, and involvement, because without you, people like you, there would be no hope for this kind of legislation; and it is essential that we move as rapidly as possible. Dr. NAYUDU. We are impressed by your leadership and are trying our best to push this legislation. Mr. LENNON. Thank you very much, Doctor. The various papers that were attached to your statement will be included in the record at this point. (The attachments follow :) Creating a Department of Environmental Conservation; and providing for an effective date. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA: * Section 1. AS 44.15.010 is amended by adding a new paragraph to read: (16) Department of Environmental Conservation * Sec. 2. AS 44 is amended by adding a new chapter to read: CHAPTER 46. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION. ARTICLE 1. ORGANIZATION. Sec. 44.46.010. COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION. The principal executive officer of the Department of Environmental Conservation is the commissioner of environmental conservation. Sec. 44.46.020. DUTIES OF DEPARTMENT. The Department of Environmental Conservation shall (1) have primary responsibility for coordination and development of policies, programs and planning related to the environment of the state and of the various regions of the state; (2) have primary responsibility for the promulgation and enforcement of regulations setting standards for the prevention and abatement of all water, land, subsurface land and air pollution, and other sources or potential sources of pollution of the environment, including by way of example only, petroleum and natural gas pipelines; |