,1 S f Ma. OadieT.. M • .1. •• • • •••••-• • " • D ___ Memorandum Date: To: From: Re: August 18, 1982 State Officials Interested in OCS Matters Lee Solsbery Deputy Director,/. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision in California v. Watt, regarding objections to Interior's accelerated OCS leasing program The State of Texas Office of State - Federal Relations 600 Maryland Avenue, S.W., • Suite 255 Washington, D.C. 20024 202/488-3927 William P. Clements, Jr. Governor Daniel N. Matheson, III Director Last Thursday, August 12, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision in California, et al. v. James G. Watt, et al., regarding California's objections to proposed OCS leasing off their coast. A complete copy of the decision is attached. A careful reading of the Appeals Court decision will be necessary, because they partly affirmed, partly reversed, partly vacated, and partly stayed portions of the lower court decision that was appealed. On the key issue of the applicability to OCS leasing of state "consistency" determinations for "actions directly affecting the coastal zone" under the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Appeals Court ruled in favor of California. That is, OCS leasing was found to "directly affect the coastal zone" and therefore, require a consistency determination. However, the Appeals Court raised a new issue in this regard that the Interior Department feels is of great importance--possibly so important as to make California's victory a pyrrhic one and allow the Interior Department to move ahead with its leasing plans. The new issue is dealt with on pages 20-25 of the decision. It emphasizes that the CZMA "does not provide that a state's / CZM_/ plan takes precedence when it would preclude the federal activity, or even that the federal activity must be as consistent with the plan as is possible. It only provides that the activity be consistent to the maximum extent practicable. The Court then went on to find that the final authority to determine whether the required consistency exists "...must reside in the Executive Branch of the federal government subject, of course, to such judicial review as is appropriate." Official interpretations of this and other findings in the decision have not yet been released, nor have parties on either side of the suit announced their intentions regarding further appeals. I will try to keep you posted on further developments. Please call me if you have any questions. Attachment AUG 20 1982