Senate Passes Ban on Most Coastal Drilling

In a major victory for environmentalists, the Senate on Wednesday approved a sweeping measure banning oil drilling along most of the U.S. coastline, including the entire length of California, until at least October, 1990.

The drilling moratorium, passed on a voice vote, is nearly identical to one that previously made it through the House. The proposed law will go to a joint conference committee before coming up for a final vote later this year.

84 Million Acres Covered

The offshore drilling ban for about 84 million acres of the nation’s outer continental shelf was included in an $11-billion appropriations bill for the Interior Department.

Although the moratorium has drawn sharp criticism from the Bush Administration, a veto is considered unlikely because the provision is included in a key appropriations bill and because popular sentiment is running against expanded offshore oil development.

Earlier this month, the Administration abandoned an effort to block the moratorium in the House, which approved the measure by a resounding 374-49 vote. Administration officials acknowledged that support for offshore exploration had crumbled in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska’s Prince William Sound.

If the moratorium becomes law, it will extend existing bans off the coasts of Northern and Southern California while imposing a drilling moratorium for the first time along the Central California coast.

Beyond California, the measure would bar drilling off the coasts of six mid-Atlantic states, Florida and Alaska. The legislation would scuttle most of the ambitious offshore oil drilling plans promulgated eight years ago by the Reagan Administration.

Other provisions of the appropriations measure would provide $12 million to acquire land for the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area as well as funds for wildlife refuges in San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento River and the San Joaquin Valley.

“We’ve had serious problems with oil spills, in Alaska, Santa Barbara and in the North Sea,” said Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.). “Everyone would like to see a comprehensive energy policy instead of one-year bans, but these moratoria have been our only means of putting a check on reckless offshore oil drilling.”

McClure Amendment Rejected

On a key vote, the Senate rejected a controversial amendment by Sen. James A. McClure (R-Ida.) that would have shut down oil and gasoline tanker deliveries to ports in areas where offshore oil drilling is banned by Congress. McClure’s proposal, which was widely seen as a last-ditch effort to weaken the offshore oil protections, was defeated 72-27.

“It is only consistent” that tankers, which cause about 95% of oil spills, should be banned from areas where Congress has limited offshore oil drilling, said McClure, who strongly favors offshore oil exploration. “Since tankers are 19 times more dangerous than offshore oil rigs, let’s eliminate tankers.”

Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), another supporter of offshore oil drilling, said McClure’s amendment made environmentalists uncomfortable because voting against it put them in the position of supporting port deliveries by oil tankers.

“This proposal is a logical extension of existing policy to protect the environment,” he said. “I question the sincerity of people who say, ‘Let’s not drill, but let’s allow supertankers in the area.’ ”

Critics, however, blasted McClure’s proposal as frivolous, claiming that it would all but shut down shipping activities in port cities such as Long Beach, San Francisco, New York, Boston and Baltimore and drive up the prices of oil and gasoline.

“Prohibiting tanker traffic into California’s ports in symbolic protest against offshore oil moratoria is senseless,” Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.) said. “California makes a major contribution to the national oil supply, and to attempt to punish us for our sincere desire to protect our coastline from environmental disaster is wrong.”

Potential Bargaining Chip

Environmental lobbyists were alarmed when the Senate Appropriations Committee voted 12 to 10 on Tuesday to include McClure’s proposal in the appropriations bill. They feared that if the measure survived a vote by the full Senate, it could be used as a bargaining chip to weaken the overall bill when it is reviewed by the conference committee.

In particular, some Senate aides suggested that Bush Administration officials wanted to see a provision banning even preliminary federal studies of oil and gas development off the California coast stricken from the House version. That measure is not contained in the Senate bill approved Wednesday.

The Interior Department opposes the sweeping ban on oil drilling but has focused most of its energy on eliminating the study provision still contained in the House measure. That task may become more difficult in view of the Senate’s vote against the McClure amendment.

Earlier this month, Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan Jr. praised offshore oil development as a solution to the nation’s energy needs and blasted congressional efforts to impose greater limits on offshore drilling. In a speech that drew criticism from members of California’s congressional delegation, he called political opposition to oil exploration “a time bomb waiting to explode.”

Administration officials have also voiced concern that the strict ban on oil drilling could render almost meaningless the work of a White House task force appointed by Bush to advise him on whether drilling should proceed in new lease areas off the Northern and Southern California coasts, as well as another area off Florida’s Gulf Coast.