4.b. Present petroleum transportation facilities have sufficient capacity for present and future needs for the next fifteen years. Even with petroleum production in Texas at 100% of maximum allowable capacity since April of 1972, there are more than sufficient pipeline, tank car, tank truck and marine loading/unloading facilities to handle the demand. There have been localized problems, occasionally severe, caused by the nonavailability of normally-used fuels. This has caused temporary shortages of particular transportation facilities because of the short term switch in fuels. These shortages are more accurately described as shortages in basic fuels (usually natural gas) caused by diversion of normal supplies, than a transportation shortage. If basic supplies of petroleum are available, the present distribution system within the state should be sufficient to transport it. Once exception to the generally good availability of facilities is the increasing waterway congestion caused by increasing imports of petroleum in small tankers of the 30,000 DWT class. Although Texas currently has slack unloading facilities for petroleum in its Gulf ports, the increasing congestion in the approaches and ship channels hampers the availability of those facilities. Nearly 47% of tonnage handled by the Houston-Galveston area ports is petroleum and petroleum products. Texas is now importing 200 MBBL/Yr from sister states and abroad. This will increase to between six and seven MBBL/Day, or 2.2 billion barrels per year over the next fifteen years. Such quantities of imports, amounting to nearly one million long tons per day, would require about 30 calls per day at Texas Gulf ports by tankers of the 30,000 DWT capacity presently being used because of depth limitations. These same imports could be handled by three calls per day at a deepwater port by tankers in the 300,000 DWT class. Question 5.a. Describe briefly what interstate, State or local government entities in your State have authority to (1) regulate or otherwise oversee harbor or terminal planning, siting, development and operation, (2) coordinate this planning with that being conducted by agencies of the Federal Government concerning such activities. b. Is your State in the near future expected to consider legislation or to follow some other course of action which would provide for any of the above? The Texas Offshort Terminal Commission and the Texas Marine Related Affairs Council are charged with developing recommended legislation specifically related to the subjects delineated in questions 5.a (1) and 5.a. (2). The next regular session of the Legislature starts in January 1975, during which related legislation will be presented. Draft legislation on these matters does not presently exist. (b) In addition, the Texas Constitutional Convention will convene in January 1974, and will, in its deliberations be considering related items at the constitutional level. Question 6. What percentage of your State coastal area which is set aside, preserved, or otherwise protected or which because of consistent and predominant use can be characterized as having significant scenic or recreational value? Texas has designated its Coastal Zone to include all of State of Texas Planning Regions which contain one or more counties bordering on the Gulf of Mexico, and to extend seaward 10.5 miles from the coastline. This Coastal Zone is exhibited on the following page. This area includes five federal wildlife refuges, six state parks, and five county/city parks. All lands submerged under salt water in this area, 1.5 million acres, are property of the State, except 132,000 acres previously deeded to navigation districts. All gulf beaches in Texas, except those on remote islands (principally the major part of Matagorda Island, Matagorda Peninsula and Saint Joseph Island) are "public." "Public" is defined in this case as right to free access along the beaches. It is estimated that the areas described above comprise 10-15% of the Coastal Zone. Question 7.a. What in summary are your State laws and policies toward the preservation or development of coastal land estuaries and submerged lands which could be expected to have some bearing on the planning, siting, development, construction, or operation of deepwater port facilities? b. Is your State in the near future expected to consider legislation or to follow some other course of action which would provide for any of the above? For federal programs this is done through the state review of the environmental impact statement; for nonfederal projects, it is necessary for obtaining the necessary state permits. Those departments specifically authorized to consider aspects of changes in the coastal zone are represented on the Interagency Council on Natural Resources and the Environment, the membership of which is shown. In addition, the Texas Offshore Terminal Commission is specifically charged with planning and coordinating any deepwater port facilities to be constructed on the Texas Gulf coast. Any such deepwater facility would be reviewed by the Interagency Council prior to issuance of necessary state permits for construction on state coastal lands or state submerged lands which extend approximately 10%1⁄2 miles (three nautical leagues) from the Coast. The Interagency Council on Natural Resources and the Environment: Office of the Governor, Dolph Briscoe, Governor; Air Control Board, Charles Barden, Executive Secretary; Department of Agriculture, John C. White, Commissioner; Highway Department, J. C. Dingwall, State Highway Engineer; Industrial Commission, James H. Harwell, Executive Director; Parks and Wildlife Department, Clayton T. Garrison, Executive Director; Bureau of Economic Geology, William L. Fisher, Director; Railroad Commission, George F. Singletary, Administrator; Soil and Water Conservation Board, Harvey Davis, Executive Director; Water Rights Commission, Judge Otha F. Dent, Chairman; Water Quality Board, Hugh C. Yantis, Jr., Executive Director; Texas Forest Service, Paul R. Kramer, Director. Ex-Officio Members: The University of Texas at Austin, Stephen Spurr, President; Texas A&M University, John C. Calhoun, Jr., Vice President for Academic Affairs. Question 8. Should the Federal Government enact a measure to authorize the development of offshore deepwater port facilities? (a) What economical, environmental or social impact could your State expect to result from the location and operation of such a facility off its shores? (b) What role would you view for your State in the planning, construction, and operation of deepwater port facilities in connection with the implementation of the Federal law? Answer (a) Although not yet adopted by the State of Texas as its official position, the economical, environmental and social impacts of deepwater port facilities are described in depth in numerous reports of already completed studies on these matters. These reports include: The Economic Impact of a Deepwater Terminal in Texas, Texas A&M University, November 1972. Environmental Aspects of a Supertanker Port on the Texas Gulf Coast, Deepwater Terminals for Texas-An Overview and a Plan, Texas A&M Report on Gulf Coast Deepwater Port Facilities-Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida (with appendices), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, July 1973. It should be emphasized that the Governor's Office, the Texas Offshore Terminal Commission, the Texas Council on Marine Related Affairs, nor any other agency of the State of Texas has adopted an official position on these or other similar reports. (b) A partial answer to this question is included in the testimony of James U. Cross, Executive Director of the Texas Offshore Terminal Commission, appearing for Governor Dolph Briscoe. A more complete answer to this question cannot be provided at this time as the Texas Offshore Terminal Commission was established by the Texas Legislature to provide detailed recommendations to the Legislature on the role the State of Texas would fulfill in the planning, construction, and operation of deepwater port facilities. (A copy of the enabling legislation is attached.) DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: The enclosed copy is in response to the invitation to comment on S. 1751. The comments on the proposed legislation have previously been transmitted to your office for inclusion on the hearings record. The enclosed are in response to the Committee's request for specific information from this state. I hope this will be of value to the Committee's deliberation. If we can be of further assistance please let me know. Sincerely, Enclosure. JOHN A. BIGGS, 1. In 1971, consumption of petroleum in the State of Washington totaled 53.5 percent of total energy consumption. This represents 1.4 percent of the national consumption in the year 1971. Estimates of petroleum demand in the next 15 years are not available at this time. 2. The principal source of crude supply is from Canada, however, it should be noted that the State of Washington refines approximately 33 percent more oil than is consumed within the state. 3. The refining capacity located within the State of Washington totals approximately 332,500 barrels per day. This represents approximately 2.5 percent of total national refinery capacity. As indicated in (2) above, Washington State is a net exporter of refined petroleum products. Data is not available at this time to estimate the probable change in this position interim within the next 15 years. 4. The intrastate system employed to process and market these crude oils and petroleum products is briefly described below: BULK OIL RECEIVING FACILITIES There are 36 facilities that receive oil, from out of state for distribution to processors or retailers, many of which are owned by one of the major oil companies. Practically all are dual-purpose facilities, that is, refineries operate their own receiving facilities as do the major pipeline terminals. PIPELINES Four major pipeline systems are operating in Washington State, three of which are product lines and one a crude oil pipeline. The Trans Mountain Pipeline brings crude oil in from the Alberta, Canada oil fields to the four North Sound refineries at the rate of about 275,000 barrels per day. The line crosses the U.S./Canada border at Sumas and extends some 65 miles to Anacortes with pumping and surge tankage stations at Lynden and Burlington. The Olympic Product Pipeline extends from the North Sound refineries at Ferndale and Anacortes to the Columbia River, crossing at Vancouver with delivery terminals at Renton, Sea-Tac Airport, Seattle, Tacoma, Oympia, and Vancouver. A new 20-inch line is being laid parallel to the existing 16-inch line from Mount Vernon to Renton. which will significantly increase the 175,000 barrels per day capacity of the present pipeline. About 75,000 barrels per day is transported across the Columbia River to Oregon markets. The Chevron Pipeline brings product at the rate of 22,000 barrels per day from Utah refineries to the Pasco terminals. A spur of the Chevron line extends from Pasco to the Petroleum Terminal in Spokane. The Yellowstone Pipeline delivers some 38,000 barrels per day of product from refineries at Billings, Montana to the Yellowstone Terminal in Spokane. A spur carries about 5,000 barrels per day of these fuels to Moses Lake. WATERBORNE Five towboat companies operate 27 oil transport barges serving over 85 waterfront terminals and bulk plants in Washington State. More than 10 tanker ships per week service waterfront oil terminals and refineries on Puget Sound. About 15 bulk oi transfers per day occur on the Sound which moves about 220,000 barrels of oil daily between ship and shore. LAND TRANSPORT Approximately 40 major trucking companies licensed in Washington participate in transporting oils from wholesalers to retailers. Oil companies also own fleets of tank trucks that engage in this traffic. Some 750 retail bulk plants provide a heating oil delivery service to the consumer by truck. Little, if any, fuel oil is transported within the state by rail; however, lube oil is brought into the state by rail since Washington State refineries do not process lube oils. PROJECTIONS Projections are exceedingly difficult to anticipate due to the variables that are facing the oil industry and the Pacific Northwest with regard to the North Slope oil, the Alaska Pipeline, the route it will follow, and further oil discoveries in Alaska and on its continental shelf. Existing refineries have undergone recent modifications to increase output, a new refinery is scheduled to be built in Portland, Oregon, Standard Oil owns a refinery site adjacent to the ARCO refinery at Ferndale and Trans Mountain Pipeline Company owns a pipeline right of way to Everett. With the increase in the Olympic Pipeine capacity, it appears that the oil industry here in Washington is well prepared for demand increases. 5. The following is a list of State laws and agencies involved in Deepwater Port Development: I. RCW 53-PORT DISTRICTS: II. This chapter authorizes port districts for the purposes of acquisition, construction, maintenance, operation, development, and regulation of transfer and terminal facilities. Before the creation of harbor improvements, a comprehensive plan must be adopted with the requirement that a public hearing must be held. A port commission may, after a public hearing thereon, create industrial development districts. Prior to making improvements, a comprehensive plan must be developed. Where industrial development districts have been established, they are authorized to acquire lands and property rights and to exercise the right to eminent domain. They are further authorized to develop and improve such lands to make the same suitable for industrial uses and purposes. The powers of a port district also include: a. Operation of foreign trade zones. b. Improvement of waters and waterways. c. Rate setting. d. Lease of property. e. Carry out studies and investigations. f. Construction of park and recreation facilities subject to the approval of the Director of the Parks and Recreation Commission and to any local agency having jurisdiction in the area. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY: A. Water Quality: 1. All intra and interstate waters, including coastal marine b. Class AA c. Class A d. Class B e. Class C These classifications have been established in conformance with present and potential use of waters with due consideration given to natural limitations. The specific classifications pertaining to each body of inter and intrastate waters and portions thereof are set forth in WAC 372-64 and WAC 372-12. |