All the conservation funding proposals Congress is considering
include specific provisions relating to coastal states.
Two of the most prominent bills would devote $1.24 billion
annually (based on projected OCS revenue in the year 2000 of $4.59
billion) to 35 coastal states and territories, including the Great
Lakes states. Coastal states have significant funding needs to
mitigate the effects of offshore drilling.
There is concern that because the allocation of funds under these
bills is partly based on the amount of oil and gas drilling that
occurs off the shore of those states, the proposals could become an
incentive for increasing offshore drilling. Also, funds could be
used for inappropriate infrastructure development rather than
environmental restoration and conservation.
Other measures Congress is considering also include funds for
coastal states, but base their allocations so that no incentive for
offshore drilling would be created, or do not link available funding
to offshore drilling at all.
Background: Coastal Conservation
Fragile coastal ecosystems around the country face treats from
development and other types of human disturbances. It is hard to
overstate the devastating environmental impacts of OCS drilling —
impacts that result from the initial exploration and development of
the platforms; from the production, transportation, and refining of
oil an gas; and ultimately, from our own consumption of OCS
petroleum. The lion's share of these impacts are borne by America's
coastal zones and fragile marine ecosystems, which rank among our
most biologically rich and economically significant natural systems.
In general, coastal states that have oil and gas drilling off their
shores suffer from the most chronic and direct impacts of this
industry. However, the recent oil spill from a grounded tanker in
Coos Bay, Oregon, clearly illustrates the hazards that oil and gas
related activities pose to all of the nation's important marine and
coastal resources.
Our coasts are now home to half the populace, which places
incredible pressures on estuaries, tidal wetlands, beaches and other
coastal habitat. As our population continues to expand, it will
become more difficult to maintain intact, functioning coastal
ecosystems. If we do not protect these coastal resources, we will
lose economically valuable fisheries, irreplaceable outdoor
recreational opportunities, and unique assemblages of species.
Our nation's marine resources face similar pressures. Increased
pollution, climate change, over-harvesting of fisheries, and other
factors are threatening the survival of many marine species —
including endangered marine mammals like the blue whale and Hawaiian
monk seal, and commercially valuable fish species like red snapper
and bluefin tuna. These are resources we cannot afford to lose.
The use of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing
revenues for coastal and marine conservation work in areas with, and
without, offshore drilling is both appropriate and
necessary.
Coastal Conservation Funding in CARA and Resources
2000
The Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA - H.R. 701/S. 25)
provides 27 percent of annual Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and
gas leasing revenues to 35 coastal states (including the Great Lakes
states) for use in the following areas: air and water quality; fish,
wildlife, wetlands, and coastal restoration; and in states with
offshore drilling, for onshore infrastructure and public service
needs.
Resources 2000 (H.R. 798/S. 446) also contains a funding program
that addresses coastal conservation, but it places more emphasis on
ocean species and marine ecosystems that CARA. Unlike CARA,
Resources 2000 does not provide special funding to states that have
OCS oil and gas development off of their shores. Any bill that
passes into law should incorporate the following in its coastal
conservation title:
- Legislation must not create financial of political
incentives for coastal state to accept increased offshore oil and
gas development. Under CARA, the allocation of OCS leasing
revenues to coastal states and their local governments uses a
formula based 50 percent of the state's proximity to current and
future OCS drilling, 25 percent on its population and 25 percent
on its shoreline miles. As a result, states with more drilling get
more money. The allocation formula for coastal impact
assistance should be amended so that proximity is either
eliminated from the formula or so that it is based on population ,
shoreline miles, and proximity to historic
production.
- These funds should be directed towards coastal and marine
conservation purposes. Under CARA, coastal impact assistance
funds could be used to subsidize environmentally harmful
infrastructure projects. Appropriate guideline on the uses of
impact assistance funds should be incorporated into the
legislation. The bill should be amended so that these funds are
used only for projects that directly offset the environmental
impacts of OCS drilling, including coastal restoration and
shoreline protection, or for efforts that protect and enhance the
coastal environment.
Top