Offshore Dilemma

Congress should let states decide whether and where oil, gas drilling happens

Gov. Mark Sanford is right: If the federal government rescinds its 25-year ban on drilling for gas and oil off the Atlantic Coast, South Carolina should get to decide whether to opt in.

But Congress, unfortunately, could be on track to impose offshore drilling on the coastal states, then force the states that don't want it to opt out. The un-Republican offshore drilling bill that the U.S. House passed earlier this year, with the support of our own House member, U.S. Rep. Henry Brown, R-Hanahan, would allow oil and gas exploration as close as 50 miles offshore. State legislators and governors who don't want drilling that close in - or who don't want it at all - would have to pass laws re-establishing the drilling ban.

The Senate, meanwhile, is far away from the House on the touchy subject of offshore drilling. Its bill, passed last week, would expand oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico but leave the Atlantic continental shelf out of bounds for oil and gas exploration. Such a policy seems too restrictive.

True, as supporters of the current drilling ban argue, the nation needs to move beyond its hydrocarbon addictions to develop more sustainable forms of energy. They castigate Congress for proposing to feed that addiction rather than adopt policies that encourage and reward exploration for energy options that don't involve oil and gas.

We would support that point of view were it not for one problem: Escalating oil and gas prices threaten to cripple the economy, and the remaining proven world oil reserves are under control of regimes - Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela - that are hostile or unfriendly. The nation needs a larger independent supply of hydrocarbons and can't wait decades for that supply to materialize. The continental shelf holds out promise to help fulfill that need.

It's easy to understand why Brown and the bipartisan majority who supported the House bill would require coastal states to take part unless they decide to opt out. That would bring states under industry pressure to allow drilling to proceed unimpeded, increasing national reserves quickly.

But if Congress mandated that only the states can open the door to drilling off their coasts, legislatures could tailor offshore exploration to meet each state's environmental and economic needs. They could determine how many - or how few - drilling rigs to allow and what restrictions to place on energy companies.

Putting the states in charge could slow the speed with which new oil and gas reserves get discovered, it's true. But ensuring that low-efficiency cars and trucks have an ample supply of cheap gas, as quickly as possible, should not be the policy goal. The policy goal should be to encourage conservation and the exploration of energy alternatives while adding enough oil and gas to U.S. reserves to prevent massive job losses and the economic meltdown of middle-class families.

Sanford, in short, has done more than make the traditional states' rights argument. The governor also has outlined the best way for South Carolina to contribute to national energy security while protecting its natural treasures and tourism economy. The hope must be that such thinking is reflected in the compromise bill Congress will consider this fall.