July 30, 1975
Page 26040
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the legislation before us today, S. 521, the Outer Continental Shelf Management Act of 1975, will greatly improve our ability to assure that development of the Outer Continental Shelf is managed responsibly and in the public interest. If properly administered, it will assure the public a fair return for the public resources which are to be exploited.
Additionally, it provides assistance to the States, and through the States to local governments, to aid them in planning for the substantial economic, social and environmental impacts which are likely to be incident to Outer Continental Shelf development. Further, it assures that States which are adversely impacted by demands for services and other effects of Outer Continental Shelf development will be compensated for losses.
Included in this legislation, both in section 4 of the present Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and in the proposed sections 23(e) and 5(d) (8) of legislation before us today, are provisions to assure continued effectiveness of State regulations applicable to Outer Continental Shelf activities. These provisions are of particular concern, to me because the State of Maine has adopted what may be the most comprehensive regulation relating to oil transfers and oil pollution of any State in the Nation.
Basically, Maine's legislation prohibits discharges of oil into waterways, requires the licensing of transfers of oil from any facilities in tidal waters of the State, uses the license fees collected from these transfer activities to support a fund to pay for cleanup of oil spills and damages to third parties resulting from oil spills, and provides for strict liability of oil facilities in cases of the State seeking repayment to the fund for cleanup costs and damage claims.
Two years ago this legislation, after being thoroughly reviewed, was upheld by the Maine Supreme Court. To assure that the State of Maine can continue to adequately protect its citizens under this comprehensive legislation, and to assure that other States adopting similar innovative programs will be equally well protected, I have several questions relating to the potential impact of this legislation.
Mr. MUSKIE. Is there any provision of S. 521 which would prohibit States from adopting or enforcing laws and regulations controlling oil transfers and oil pollution?
Mr. JACKSON. There is no provision of S. 521 which in any way preempts States from regulating oil transfers and oil pollution.
Mr MUSKIE. Is there anything in this legislation which would affect or preempt the right of States to charge license fees for oil transfers?
Mr. JACKSON. No.
Mr. MUSKIE. Is there anything in this legislation which would in any way affect or preempt any State laws, or rules of law created by court decisions, such as standards of liability, compensation for damage or otherwise in an area where States presently exercise legislation?
Mr. JACKSON. No. This legislation only applies to the Outer Continental Shelf; it affects no areas over which the States currently exercise jurisdiction. Further the provisions relating to compensation in this bill, where they might apply to damage occurring within a State's jurisdiction supplement, do not substitute current Federal and State laws and court decisions making provisions for compensation for damage from oil spills.
I would like to draw your attention to the language of section 23(e) :
The provisions of this section shall not be interpreted to supersede section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 or preempt the field of strict liability or to enlarge or diminish the authority of any State to impose additional requirements.
I would also like to read the report language discussing section 23(e) :
Subsection 23(e) provides that section 23 does not supersede section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 or preempt the field of strict liability or to enlarge or diminish the authority of any State to impose additional requirements.
The Committee did not want to override the cleanup requirements of the 1972 Act except to provide unlimited liability for cost of cleaning up OCS spills. The Committee also did not want to preclude the States from imposing more stringent requirements if they wished to do so.
Mr. MUSKIE. Does the limitation of individual liability to the $7 million proposed in the new section 23(b) (3) in any way prevent State courts from awarding and forcing recovery of a greater sum against a leaseholder for damages which may occur within the territorial jurisdiction of a State court.
Mr. JACKSON. The limitation of liability provision in section 23(b) (3) does not prohibit State courts from awarding and enforcing recovery of greater sums against individual leaseholders.
Mr. MUSKIE. Is there any provision of this legislation which would provide justification for any person suggesting, in a court action or otherwise, that any State law or regulation, program of compensation or rule established by a State court has been in any way preempted by the provisions of S. 521?
Mr. JACKSON. No; there is no such provision. Again, I refer to section 23(e) of S. 521 and the accompanying report language.
Mr. MUSKIE. Does this legislation provide any special rights for construction, maintenance, or operation of pipelines or other rights-of-way from the Outer Continental Shelf through State territory within the 3-mile limit which could exempt such pipelines or other rights-of-way from regulation by the States?
Mr. JACKSON. Within the 3-mile limit, State laws are and remain fully applicable to any pipelines or other rights-of-way; in fact, the States must grant those rights-of-way within the 3-mile limit.