The inherent tension between energy production and environmental quality is a theme which in recent years has grown all too familiar. Proponents of a given source of energy (e.g., nuclear fission or coal) typically assert that it cannot fulfill its potential contribution to the nation's energy difficulties unless existing environmental restriction (e.g., nuclear licensing laws or Clean Air Act regulations) are eased or postponed temporarily. Defenders of the environment then attempt to generate a hue and cry sufficient to stay the hand of the decision maker, usually Congress. The most recent conflicts show the proponents of energy development have tended to prevail at the expense of the environment.

The recent amendments to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA)¹ followed a contrary pattern, however. When President Nixon announced a drive to dramatically increase petroleum production from the outer continental shelf (OCS) in 1974, oil companies had been withdrawing oil and natural gas from OCS lands in the Gulf of Mexico and off the California coast for more than 20 years, relatively unencumbered by environmental restrictions. Since that time, growing national energy demand and soaring oil imports have added even more urgency to the call for expedited utilization of OCS resources, which represent the major untapped repository of domestic petroleum-based energy in the lower 48 states. Yet, this mounting pressure has been matched step-for-step by aggressive demands for stronger environmental safeguards. In September 1978, Congress produced a set of amendments to the OCSLA which reform considerably the mechanics of the OCS oil and gas leasing process and require that exploration and development activities occur only if accompanied by rigorous measures to reduce adverse social and environmental effects. Statutory provisions are thus in place which promise to achieve a reasonably harmonious balance between energy development and environmental protection.