could be resolved in such a way that that problem could be avoided. Mr. HEYWARD. In any case, I assume you would like for the legislation to recognize that the States have the major role, no matter how it is expressed.

Mr. MILLS. Very definitely so.

Mr. HEYWARD. Thank you.
Mr. DOWNING. Mr. Eckhardt?

Mr. ECKHARDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
That raises several questions.

On this point, suppose, for instance, a terminal was sought to be built to serve Lake Charles and Port Arthur.

I assume from your statement that you would feel that if either Texas or Louisiana indicated a desire or generated the desire to build a terminal, you would feel that this ought to weigh heavily with the Federal licensing authority in favor of building the terminal.

Mr. MILLS. I think that is a fair interpretation.

Mr. ECKHARDT. But you would feel in a circumstance in which such a terminal were opposed by Texas and supported by Louisiana, that regardless of whether it is technically within the waters off the State of Texas or the waters off of Louisiana, that Texas' objection should not constitute an effective veto?

Mr. MILLS. Well, I think the magnitude of the objection, based on substantive information that could point up, for example, a very drastic potential environmental hazard, this type of thing, this is something that would have to be weighed by the licensing agency.

I think an arbitary offhand objection, because of competitive advantage, or one thing or another, would not necessarily carry as much weight as the substantive objection based on the sound environmental findings or other findings that would be detrimental to the adjacent State.

Mr. ECKHARDT. Well, there is, of course, no question but that either State desiring to regulate the manner in which the terminal is built or to influence the location of the terminal with respect to matters affecting environmental concerns of either State should be seriously considered by the licensing authority, but the question I am getting at is, you do not feel that the State should have the ultimate determination of negativing Federal licensing where the terminal would have economic advantage to both States, even though technically the location of the terminal might be in the one. State or the other?

Mr. MILLS. That is correct.

Mr. ECKHARDT. Thank you, sir.

Mr. MILLS. I can, in this regard, if I might, Mr. Chairman, just expand.

Louisiana and Texas have a very excellent working relationship today, for example, on a joint project at Toledo Bend, where a large lake was developed, and each State completed with State funds and each State put up $6 million for development and have a joint compact executed for operation and maintenance of this lake facility. And it works very well.

Interstate cooperation, in addition to State-Federal cooperation. in this regard would be very essential, and I think is something that would have to be worked out in order to accommodate this purpose. But I think it is something that has precedent.

Mr. ECKHARDT. Just one brief question.

With respect to the regulation of such term federally the State might have a wide range of authority with respect to its operation of the terminal affecting environmental concerns, would you not feel that with respect to interstate commerce that the Federal Government should have the ultimate authority to decide such questions as to whether or not the terminal would constitute a common carrier serving all of those who seek to utilize its facilities? Mr. MILLS. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Yes; I think that is in the national interest, and I think it is essential.

Our legislation envisions development of a facility that will be operated as a common carrier.

Mr. ECKHARDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOWNING. Mr. Lott?

Mr. LOTT. No questions.

Mr. DOWNING. Mr. Treen?

Mr. TREEN. Just this comment to Mr. Eckhardt.

Since SEADOCK wants to build a port off the coast of Texas and LOOP wants to build one off the coast of Louisiana, we will not block yours if you will not block ours.

Mr. ECKHARDT. I am saying I do not see any real conflict. There might even be two or three terminals.

Mr. DOWNING. Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. MILLS. Thank you for the opportunity to appear.

Mr. Chairman, as I did say, I do have the study here of the H. J. Kaiser Co. on the economic impact of a Louisiana offshore oil port, the book with the blue cover, and have another paper entitled, "Navigation and Shipping, Deep Draft Harbor and Terminal Authority," prepared by the State of Louisiana.

Mr. DOWNING. Without objection, those documents will be reviewed by counsel and, if appropriate, inserted in the record at this point.

[The documents referred to follow:]

PREFACE

This is the final report from H. J. Kaiser Company and Gulf South Research Institute (GSRI) on an economic impact study of a Louisiana offshore oil port. The study was coordinated by D. A. Neumann of H. J. Kaiser Company, in conjunction with the Economics and Social Sciences Division of GSRI, under the supervision of Jan W. Duggar, Ph.D., scientific director. Working under Dr. Duggar's direction were the following GSRI staff members: Charles E. Hinton, director, Environmental/ Resources Planning; Jimmy B. Allen, economist; James R. Steele, director, computer applications; Philip A. Thompson, urban designer; Shelton W. Perry and William B. Morrison, research analysts; and Annette M. Jordan, research assistant. The final report was prepared for publication by Yvonne L. Day, senior technical writer/editor.

The study participants wish to acknowledge the invaluable assistance of the staff members of LOOP Inc., and Ms. Virginia Simons of the New Orleans Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development Council. These individuals were particularly helpful during the data collection phases of this study.

22-635 O 73 - 36