Clean Water in the News

 Plan to boost energy supply, backers say; bill faces fight in Senate

H. JOSEF HEBERT

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The House voted 232-187 Thursday to end a quarter-century offshore drilling ban and allow energy companies to tap natural gas and oil beneath waters from New England to Alaska.

Opponents of the federal ban argued that the nation needed to move closer to energy independence and insisted the gas and oil could be taken without threatening the environment and coastal beaches. They said states could choose to keep the moratorium.

But the bill's prospects in the Senate were uncertain. Florida's two senators have vowed to filibuster any legislation that would allow drilling within 125 miles of Florida's coast. Other senators from several coastal states also have strongly opposed ending the drilling restrictions.

Many lawmakers fear that energy development could despoil coastal beaches if there's a spill, threatening the multibillion-dollar recreation and tourist economies of states where offshore energy development has been barred since the early 1980s.

An attempt by a group of Florida lawmakers to allow states to maintain a protective zone of 125 miles was rejected.

The bill also would revamp how the federal government shares oil and gas royalties with states, producing a windfall for four Gulf states -- Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi and Alabama -- that currently have oil and gas rigs off their shores.

The eastern and western Gulf of Mexico produce virtually all of the country's offshore oil and gas. Waters off the eastern Gulf, both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and much of Alaska are under the drilling moratorium.

The bill would increase states' share of royalties to 50 percent over 10 years and eventually to as much as 75 percent. States currently get less than 5 percent of royalties from offshore oil and gas leases in the central and western Gulf.

The Interior Department estimated the changes could cost the federal government as much as $69 billion in lost royalties over 15 years and "several hundred billion dollars" over 60 years.

How Carolinians Voted

In the Carolinas, House members split along party lines.

Even Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., a coastal Republican who'd been a strong defender of the moratorium, said he was voting yes to give states some control over the future of their coastlines.

"If we don't protect the states now," said Jones, whose district includes the Outer Banks, "who's to say the next president -- of whatever party -- won't come in and say, `We as a federal government are going to start offshore development and the states won't get any of the revenue.' "

Reps. G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C., and Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., whose districts also include coastal counties, voted no. "Even a small accident near our coast could potentially turn into a huge and lengthy disaster for North Carolina," Butterfield said in a statement. "Our coastal communities are just too vital to North Carolina's economy and character to be placed at risk."

Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., of Cherryville, said he voted yes to end a federal policy that he says has constricted the supply of energy, and because he wanted North Carolina to benefit from any oil and gas reserves found in the deep waters off its coast.

South Carolina's two coastal representatives, both Republicans, voted yes.