.proposal) has testified in our court proceedings that

throughout almost the entire period of the Department's review of the oil companies' proposal, the Department worked on the assumption that there would be a "necessity of producing

and transporting the gas from the north slope oil fields" and on the assumption of "the probable utilization of the transCanada route by a gas pipeline" (Brew Dep., p. 26). But

no attempt was every made to, in Dr. Brew's words, "look at in a systematic way, the alternative possibilities for

transporting North Slope gas to market, and attempt to evaluate the environmental impact of gas transportation" (Ibid.)

The interested oil companies were not even asked to disclose their plans for North Slope natural gas. Nor were such questions as the likelihood of a second oil pipeline from the North Slope and the likely future development of oil and gas reserves in the Canadian Arctic and Gulf of Alaska considered germane. No discussions were initiated by our Government with the Canadian Government either to ascertain its interest in an all-land common corridor for oil and gas or to collaborate with it in the development of data necessary for the selection of the best all-land route. No study was ever undertaken on the specific question of how much of the public lands might be saved or what the potential environmental savings would be of an allland common corridor that could accommodate both oil and gas pipelines (Brew Dep., p. 35).

The unfortunate result of this approach is that there has never been an adequate assessment of the possibility of having oil and natural gas pipelines, together with other transportation

facilities, in a single common corridor. We submit that, under

appropriately strong legislative directive, such an assess

ment would have been required from the very beginning, when the oil resources were first discovered.

CONCLUSIONS

The hurried nature of this hearing precludes us from submitting a comprehensive set of conclusions. What follows, however, is a generalized summary of the conclusions we have reached to date.

1.

Obviously, no action should be taken on any general revision of the right-of-way laws until such time as the Interior Department has presented to the Committee a catalogue of existing right-of-way laws; an explanation of their current provisions; a description of the rights-of-way now in existence under the various laws; and an evaluation of the shortcomings that are alleged to exist in each of the now-existing laws.

2. No action should be taken on any general revision of the right-of-way laws until such time as the Interior Department has provided this Committee with a comprehensive description of the extent to which the public lands are now dedicated to private rights-of-way. Without such information this Committee has no basis for determining what action, if any, should be taken to change the existing structure of rights-of-way. Little good will result from any revision of the public land laws if it is merely superimposed upon an archaic structure that is permitted to continue substantially unakated.

3. No action should be taken on any general revision of the right-of-way laws until the Interior Department has presented testimony (including testimony by representative members of its field offices where the overwhelming majority of rightof-way applications are processed) on the manner in which rightof-way applications are now processed. Inquiries should be made especially as to the extent, if any, to which current procedures require the collection of information to permit an informed evaluation of future developments that might affect

the optimum location of the specific right-of-way requested or even make the right-of-way unnecessary. Without such information, this Committee is not in a position to determine what, if any, procedures should be specifically incorporated into any omnibus statute to ensure that agencies such as the Interior Department are not blinding themselves to future developments in their piecemeal review of permit applications.

4. Any legislation which updates the existing right-of-way provisions must provide action-forcing mechanisms and standards to ensure that the needless duplication of rights-of-way is avoided:

(a) We suggest that it may be appropriate, following the collection of the information described in paragraphs 1-3 above, to insert a general provision analogous to Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. § 1653) in` any legislation that may ultimately be reported out of this Committee. Such a provision might prohibit the Secretary from

.approving an application for a private right-of-way across

the public land unless the right-of-way is within an existing

common corridor or there is no "feasible and prudent alternative" except to grant a right-of-way outside such existing

corridors.

The same general provision should also contain language that would ensure that necessary planning has occurred prior to the approval of the right-of-way to minimize potential harm to the public lands. At the least, this would require the administrator to take all appropriate steps to collect data from the applicants (and within the term applicant I include parent and associated companies) on possible future developments in the area as well as other relevant information that will permit the administrator to be cognizant of the short and long term developments that are likely to occur.

(b) Additional language is necessary, in our view, to provide explicit recognition that the characteristics and potential impacts of rights-of-way vary greatly. This is especially important in the case of oil and natural gas pipelines which may entail greater risks to public lands than do rightsof-way for other purposes. (There may, of course, be rights-of-way in addition to oil and gas pipelines which also require special attention and the Committee should endeavor to identify them if they exist.) We submit that it would be appropriate to require (1) that to the maximum extent feasible oil and natural gas pipelines must be placed along the route of already-existing pipelines; (2) that unless the Secretary affirmatively establishes that it is not

feasible and prudent to do so, pipelines carrying oil and gas from the

same fields and areas adjacent thereto must be placed within the same common corridor.

5. To permit Congress to play its proper role in the formulation of policies relating to the use of public lands and the overall energy needs of the country, the Congress should reserve for itself the final decision on the vital national question of how the oil and natural gas resources of the North Slope can best serve the needs of the nation.

Mr. Chairman, these preliminary comments are offered in response to the Committee's invitation. We would urge that full and exhaustive hearings be continued with sufficient advance notice to permit complete exposition of all of the technical background that should be made available to this committee and Congress. Thank you.