Federal government can’t solve alone

States CP

Solvency - General

States drive oil production best

Bluey 12 Rob, The Foundry, Heritage Foundation, “Under Obama, Oil and Gas Production on Federal Lands Is Down 40%,” 1/18, http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/18/under-obama-oil-and-gas-production-on-federal-lands-is-down-40/

The vast majority of America’s new oil and gas production is happening on private lands in states like North Dakota, Alaska and Texas. It’s not that Obama is devoid of responsibility. His administration oversees oil and gas production on federal lands by issuing leases. But when measuring oil and gas production in areas under Obama’s jurisdiction, the numbers tell a different story. Citing publicly available federal data, the House Natural Resources Committee noted these figures: Oil and natural gas production on federal lands is down by more than 40 percent compared to 10 years ago. Under the Obama administration, 2010 had the lowest number of onshore leases issued since 1984. The Obama administration held only one offshore lease sale in 2011. Despite the Obama administration’s restrictive policies for oil and gas production on federal lands, overall production still increased thanks to the pro-energy policies in states like North Dakota. “North Dakota has been the poster child for what can happen when we unleash free enterprise and allow states to develop and commercialize their resources,” Heritage’s Nick Loris wrote recently on The Foundry. “North Dakota is drilling at record pace.” The result: North Dakota’s unemployment rate is 3.4 percent, the lowest in the country. According to a recent report from IHS Global Insight, North Dakota already returned to pre-recession employment along with energy-rich Alaska. Texas is expected to do so in the first quarter of 2012, followed by Nebraska and South Dakota next year. Those states all have something in common: energy production. That policy aligns with recommendations from Obama’s own Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, which yesterday issued a report calling for more energy production that includes drilling and pipelines. Here’s the language from the Jobs Council report: As a nation, we need to take advantage of all our natural resources to spur economic growth, create jobs and reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil. First, we should allow more access to oil, natural gas and coal opportunities on federal lands. Where sources of shale natural gas have been uncovered, federal, state and local authorities should encourage its safe and responsible extraction. While the administration has supported holding additional lease sales and evaluating new areas for drilling, further expanding and expediting the domestic production of fossil fuels both offshore and onshore (in conjunction with more electric and natural gas vehicles) will reduce America’s reliance on foreign oil and the huge outflow of U.S. dollars this reliance entails. In addition, policies that encourage rapid lease development while emphasizing the highest safety standards will ensure companies responsibly drill for natural gas or oil and mine for coal or other our minerals in federal areas in a timely manner.

States sufficient – capability, jurisdiction

Dunlop 8 Becky Norton, University of Missouri-Kansas City Federalist Society, Heritage Foundation, “Offshore Drilling: An Alternative to Funding Terrorism,” 10/30, http://www.heritage.org/about/speeches/offshore-drilling-an-alternative-to-funding-terrorism

What this issue comes down to is Constitutional federalism. It needs to be accepted that the states can responsibly control and maintain their own waters instead of being micromanaged from above. Increasing energy supply is a necessary step that the United States must take to be ensured of continued and new economic growth. It is ridiculous to think that with America’s current mobile workforce infrastructure we can simply turn off all the gas pumps overnight and wake up the next morning on a renewable energy source. We are working on renewable energy. And certainly even more needs to be done. But in the interim, that transition can be made easier with the production of our own fuels to ease the burden on the average American at the pump. In addition, producing more of our own energy means that we will not have to depend on imports from country’s that do not have our interests in mind. It is a very serious matter the possibility that taxpayers and consumers are putting dollars into the hands of those who support terrorism and seek to undermine the United States. These include of course, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Becoming a nation in which America can be much more self reliant for its energy needs prevents the potential funding of those who wish to destroy us. We can and should have trading relationships for energy with other nations but they should be ones we deem to be friends and allies in the quest for greater human liberty. When I worked with Governor George Allen in Virginia we realized early with the EPA that a one-size-fits-all blanket policy does not work. How could it? When you look over the landscape of our nation, it should be apparent that what works for the beaches of Florida is most likely not going to be appropriate for the Black Hills of South Dakota. The states should decide what policies best work for their citizens and their environment. Under the policy I advocate, states would have option of choosing how to deal with their Outer Continental Shelf lands, and the benefits of permitting drilling would go to the states. In a state like Florida, where there are objections to energy development, there would be the option of not drilling but I would argue that by delegating these decisions to the local level, Florida’s citizens would have more of a voice in how the drilling was conducted and how the revenues would be spent. By letting the state decide how to go about developing OCS, citizens can hold their elected legislators accountable. If Floridians disapprove of how a legislator stands on OCS development, they can vote him out in the next election. Or conversely, if the drilling produces more revenue it can be used for something like the Everglades Restoration of improving the stewardship of other state resources, or even reducing the tax burden on Floridians. Santa Barbara County in California recently reversed their stand on offshore drilling and passed resolution supporting more drilling. Even with the federal moratoria lifted on Oct 1st, current Washington policy dictates that a federal regulator knows better. More importantly is the matter of revenue. Currently, the federal government receives the revenue derived from OCS energy production. Bills like H.R.6899 would continue this trend. In addition, it would strip the oil companies of $18 billion in tax breaks leaving both the states and oil companies with little incentive to allow or explore drilling, respectively. I purpose that the federal government would no longer receive a cut of the money until the resources were developed and then its “cut” would come in the form of tax revenue generated by increased economic activity. The simple fact would be that if OCS has been removed from federal jurisdiction, each state would receive 80 percent of the revenues generated from production off its shore. It would share the remaining 20 percent with other states. Obviously, a revenue-sharing structure of this sort would find critics in the federal government, which would lose roughly $5 billion each year. Many big government environmentalists would object because the federal government uses some of these funds for environmental purposes, like the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the National Historic Preservation Fund. Without OCS revenues, they would argue, these programs would lose important income. My response to these critics would be that I would rather have these revenues in the hands of the states and not the federal government. When the states control the money, they would be free to use it for the purposes they see fit. In many cases, this money could be used to fund environmental initiatives that are made to fit the specific needs of the states as determined by their governors and state legislatures. And, if citizens are not pleased with the way these revenues are being spent, they can simply elect new officials. It’s a much better system than when the policy is centered in Washington, D.C. with bureaucrats who neither knew nor frankly care what states, localities and citizens want or need. Current OCS policy is dictated by Washington and is a complex maze of bureaucratic regulations even without the moratorium. In the case of OCS, a simple policy is the best policy. The federal government should cede its authority to the states. Let’s allow the states to decide what to do with their lands. Let’s stop the micromanagement, and understand that those at the state level will without a shadow of a doubt responsibly take care of their environment, their home. Let states use new tax revenues from drilling to reduce taxes on entrepreneurs, so they can fund and develop all matter of energy sources and infrastructure and increase the invention of new and better technologies.

Lifting state bans solves oil access

CNN, 8 7/14, http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-14/politics/bush.offshore_1_offshore-oil-drilling-fadel-gheit-exploration?_s=PM:POLITICS

The White House estimates that there are 18 billion barrels of oil¶ offshore that have not been exploited because of state bans, 10¶ billion to 12 billion in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and 800¶ billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Green River Basin.

States have influence in OCS leasing

Amy McIntire, civil litigation associate at Chaffe McCall LLP, Notre Dame Law, 2/24/14, “OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF: THE UPHILL BATTLE FOR STATE INPUT INTO FEDERAL POLICY” Texas Journal of Oil, Gas, and Energy Law, http://tjogel.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/10_Volume-9-Issue-1-McIntire_Final.pdf //RX

With amendments to the current law likely to be an ineffective solution, coastal states should turn to less traditional methods if they hope to gain substantial input in the OCS leasing process. The challenge by Louisiana to federal policy in Blanco v. Burton offers an excellent example of how states can achieve their end goals through alternative means.202 Although Louisiana failed in its challenge of federal policy under the traditional means of seeking enforcement of CZMA, OCSLA, and NEPA, it was able to gain substantial oversight of leasing activities through less traditional means—a settlement agreement with the MMS.203 While every coastal state is unlikely to achieve its goals through a settlement agreement with the federal government, other alternative means, or a combination of any of these alternative means, may offer an effective solution. For instance, some states have attempted to minimize the adverse environmental impact of offshore oil and gas development through the adoption of local city and county ordinances.204 These ordinances either bar the siting of onshore support facilities for offshore development or subject the approval of such support facilities to a vote of local citizens.205 Additionally, some coastal states have attempted to influence the OCS process by making OCS leasing an issue in highly publicized presidential campaigns.206 By making offshore development a campaign issue, these states hope for the election of a President who supports public sentiment against offshore development and will actually take action once in office.207 Thus, considering the lack of success that has been achieved through traditional means as well as the exemplary success story of Louisiana in Blanco v. Burton, these alternative means likely offer the best opportunity for states seeking substantial input in the OCS leasing process. Clearly, no proposed solution, either traditional or non-traditional, is without its own set of flaws. The regulatory scheme governing OCS leasing is incredibly complex, and any successful solution will likely be equally complicated. But, given the enormity of the economic and environmental concerns at stake, coastal states’ interest in gaining some control in the OCS leasing process outweighs the difficulties that they face. Therefore, to protect their own interests and obtain control in the OCS leasing process, coastal states should explore less traditional means of challenging federal policy, such as the pursuit of voluntary settlement agreements, the adoption of local ordinances, and the utilization of the political process.

States solve better than the USfg

Robin Craig, University of Utah Law Prof, Summer 1993, “Treating Offshore Submerged Lands as Public Lands: A Historical Perspective,” Public Law and Resources Law Review, http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1365&context=plrlr //RX

*g”=developed acreage

Either the coastal state or the federal government could provide G" as long as it acts in a social welfare maximizing manner and takes all of the benefits and costs of the OCS into account. One problem with federal government control of public goods in general is the "distance of the government from the governed" that makes it difficult, or costly, to estimate the benefits of the public good in each state. As a result, there is a tendency toward uniformity in provision of the public good across different areas. This leads to too much of the good in some states and too little in others. In addition, there is another problem with federal control of the OCS that pertains to the nature of current state involvement. Since the states get no compensation for allowing OCS development, in many cases they use the consistency provisions of the CZMA to try to fight it. In so doing, they lower the federal government's marginal cost of OCS preservation to MC' in Figure 1-i.e., by preserving an additional acre, the federal government now gives up the revenues that could have been earned on that acre less the costs of fighting the state over development. These costs take the form of delays, administrative expenses, and litigation. In addition, because oil companies realize that they themselves will incur costs as a result of state actions-i.e., it is often more difficult or more costly to get certain permits approved-they bid lower amounts for tracts than they otherwise would. As a result of the lower marginal cost curve, the amount of preserved OCS acreage is pushed beyond the optimum-i.e., G' > G' in Figure 1. These factors-i.e., the federal government's general tendency toward uniformity and the states' actions pushing the federal government to provide greater preservation than is optimal-suggest that state control might be more efficient than federal. However, a state will only consider the costs and benefits that accrue to its own citizens, thus if spillovers of benefits or costs to other states exist, there can be a role for the federal government. In particular, if there are cost spillovers, the coastal state will provide too much G-i.e., under develop the OCS; if there are benefit spillovers, the state will provide too little G-i.e., overdevelop.

Solvency – Jurisdiction

Best oil production happens at the state level – industry connections and jurisdiction prove

Fox ’11 (Eric, Investopedia, MSNBC, “Bubbling crude: America's top 6 oil-producing states,” 6/8, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43085246/ns/business-oil_and_energy/t/bubbling-crude-americas-top-oil-producing-states/#.UB1LzMhWpJU, TGA)

Crude oil production from the United States averaged approximately 5.48 million barrels per day in January 2011, much less than the country consumes. The bulk of this domestic production comes from just a handful of states where the oil and gas industry has been operating for generations. Here are the six states that produce the greatest amount of crude oil. 1. Texas It's no surprise that Texas is the largest domestic producer of oil as this state has had a culture associated with the oil business for more than century. Many historians trace the beginning of the modern oil era to the famous Spindletop well drilled near Beaumont, Texas in 1901. The well blew out and reportedly produced 100,000 barrels of oil per day until it was brought under control nine days later. In January 2011, crude oil production in Texas averaged 962,338 barrels a day. Like other areas of the United States, this production peaked a generation ago and then entered a long-term decline. Since 2004, however, production leveled out and has been stable since that time. The oil industry is currently focused on increasing Texas oil development from the Eagle Ford Shale, the northern part of the Barnett Shale, and the Permian Basin. 2. Alaska Alaska is the second-largest oil producer of crude oil with average daily production of 670,553 barrels in February 2011 (includes natural gas liquids). The state was a relatively minor source of domestic production of crude oil until the discovery of oil in the North Slope in the 1970s. Production from the Prudhoe Bay field and other fields began in 1977 and at one point comprised 25% of all U.S. oil production. Unfortunately for the United States, Alaskan oil production has been in a steep decline since the late 1980s when production peaked at over two million barrels per day. This will probably continue declining as the industry is focused on other areas that are easier to develop. 3. California Some might find it odd that California is the third largest producer of crude oil in the United States, as this state has a reputation as ground zero for the environmental movement. Things were much different in the middle of the 19th century, as the oil industry in California began with operators building tunnels or pits to get at the oil, much of which seeped to the surface. The first successful oil wells were drilled in the 1860s and the industry hasn't stopped since. In December 2010, California reported average daily production of 536,800 barrels of oil from both onshore and offshore areas. This doesn't include offshore production from the Outer Continental Shelf that is regulated by the federal government, which typically averages about 35,000 barrels per day. The state's largest oil field is the Midway Sunset field which averaged production of 85,100 barrels per day in December 2010. 4. North Dakota North Dakota has the honor of being the fastest-growing state oil producer over the last few years, as it has seen oil production increase from less than 100,000 barrels per day in 2005 to the 348,367 barrels per day reported in February 2011. This amazing growth has been powered by the development of the Bakken formation in the Williston Basin and other areas of the state. There are currently 172 rigs drilling in North Dakota with 95% of these rigs targeting the Bakken and Three Forks formation. Although there is considerable debate on where oil production from the Bakken will peak, one might want to look at the capital plans of the pipeline companies. These operators are planning on increasing takeaway capacity in the area to one million barrels per day by 2015. 5. New Mexico New Mexico is the fifth-largest domestic oil producer with average daily production of 177,815 barrels per day in 2010. The state is a relative newcomer to the business compared to other top producers, with the first successful commercial oil well drilled in 1924. 6. Oklahoma Oklahoma comes in sixth in oil production, with average daily production of 147,341 barrels per day in 2010 (through November). The oil industry in Oklahoma also has a long and storied history with the Nellie Johnstone No. 1 well near Bartlesville kicking off the beginning of a boom in 1897. Oklahoma was also where Jean Paul Getty got his start in the oil business in the early 1900s. Getty later went on to run the Getty Oil Company and became one of the first billionaires in the United States. The bottom line A handful of states are responsible for much of the domestic oil production in the United States, and these states have a long association with the oil industry, dating back more than a century. For as long as the world continues to heavily rely on oil (and for as long as oil lies beneath U.S. soil) these six states can count on big profits from the oil fields for years to come.

States control drilling issues

Ajc.com 07/17/08 http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/printedition/2008/07/17/gased.html?cxntlid=inform_artr

States ought to be able to determine for themselves whether or not to allow offshore drilling. As a coastal state, Georgia's voice can weigh heavily in the national debate over energy policy. While we do not know what resources are readily available off Georgia's coast, if any, we must join with other coastal states in advocating for increased access to offshore drilling. Each state should be free to drill or not drill. States that allow coastal energy production should also receive a fair share in the revenues generated from the offshore leases.

AT: Perm

States solve best alone – federal involvement is worse

Mark Green 11/26/12 (16 years as national editorial writer in the Washington Bureau of The Oklahoman newspaper. In all, he has been a reporter and editor for more than 30 years, including six years as sports editor at The Washington Times. “Turning Aside the ‘Regulatory Flood’” http://energytomorrow.org/blog/turning-aside-the-regulatory-flood/#/type/all)

No, when you have the winning Powerball ticket, you redeem it. To do so we need sensible, efficient regulation and regulatory systems, led by experienced and competent state-level regulators. We don’t need federal regulatory layers that merely duplicate what the states already are doing, with professionalism and efficiency.¶ Likewise, we need a fair tax system that doesn’t single out an industry or a handful of companies. Rather, we need one that encourages investment and development while assuring that U.S. energy firms can go up against global competitors.¶ This is the path to more domestic oil and natural gas – the president’s goal – and the desire of the American people.

state input good but perm fails -cooperation weakens the ability of states to be heard

Amy McIntire, civil litigation associate at Chaffe McCall LLP, Notre Dame Law, 2/24/14, “OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF: THE UPHILL BATTLE FOR STATE INPUT INTO FEDERAL POLICY” Texas Journal of Oil, Gas, and Energy Law, http://tjogel.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/10_Volume-9-Issue-1-McIntire_Final.pdf //RX

In light of the lucrative nature of offshore drilling and the serious environmental risks and hazards associated with the OCS development business, coastal states have strong incentives to seek some control in the decision making process of OCS leasing. Although the federal government has jurisdiction over all submerged lands three miles beyond the coastline and controls the OCS leasing process, lawmakers recognized the benefits of state input.142 Consequently, mechanisms for some state input in offshore drilling procedures were drafted into the major statutes that govern the OCS leasing process. The drafters of CZMA explicitly recognized the need for cooperative efforts between states and the federal government and took measures to ensure that federal OCS development activities were compatible with each state’s OCSLA also provides states with the opportunity to submit recommendations regarding proposed lease sales, and the plain language of the statute dictates than any “reasonable” recommendation must be accepted by the federal government.144 Finally, NEPA’s incorporation into the OCS leasing process was intended to protect states from incurring the type of environmental damage that is often associated with offshore drilling.145 Combined, these three statutes appear to confer upon states the opportunity for meaningful input in the OCS leasing process. In execution, however, they arguably have failed. Both agency and judicial treatment of these laws have weakened the ability of states to be heard, and coastal states have consequently been left with almost no effective means for input in the leasing process.

Solvency – Devolution Module

Devolution to the states solves better-federal government limit production potential

Nicolas Loris, Fellow of economic policy at Heritage, 5/7/14, “Federal Regulations and Federal Ownership Limit Oil Production Potential,” Heritage, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/05/federal-regulations-and-federal-ownership-limit-oil-production-potential //RX

Production of crude oil in the United States is up to 8.36 million barrels per day—the highest since January 1988.[1] The increased supply of oil has widespread economic benefits, but a new Congressional Research Service report shows that when the numbers are broken down by ownership it becomes clear that the situation could be even better. Although oil production overall has almost doubled in less than six years, production continues to fall on federally owned land areas.[2] A more streamlined and efficient environmental review and permitting process would be welcome, but the best solution would be for Congress to devolve energy production decisions regarding federal lands to the states. Offshore Drilling Discouraged After oil production reached a peak in barrels produced offshore per day in 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill resulted in a blanket moratorium on all new offshore projects and the cancellations of several existing leases. There may no longer be a literal ban on offshore drilling, but government policies still in effect have the same consequences. It can take anywhere from five to 10 years for a company to move from approval to production, with no guarantee that the permit obtained will lead to successful crude oil production. Much of this is due to copious amounts of regulation and red tape.[3] The time and labor needed to see this process through dwarfs the amount of time it takes other businesses to expand and grow in almost any other industry. On top of the inefficient and onerous regulatory process, the oil industry has access to just 15 percent of available offshore areas.[4] Inaccessibility and unnecessary regulations inhibit economic growth in various parts of the country off the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts. A study recently published by the American Petroleum Institute and the National Ocean Industries Association shows that opening up offshore areas for drilling in the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf—just one region where offshore drilling is possible but not permitted—would create 280,000 jobs in that region alone.[5] Drilling on Federal Lands Faces Bureaucratic Hurdles In addition to a continued decline in offshore drilling, onshore drilling on federal land has increased at only a fraction of the rate as on non-federal lands. Almost all of the benefits from fracking thus far have occurred on non-federal land. While production on state and private lands has grown by almost 65 percent in the past seven years, production on federal lands has increased by about 27 percent, less than half the rate.[6] In total, federal lands now account for only 5 percent of oil production.[7] Daily federal onshore oil production is equal to about one-third of what is produced every day at the Bakken formation alone.[8] Part of the discrepancy is that many of the big oil shale reserves lie on non-federal lands; however, a major reason that production on federal land has lagged behind is not a matter of economic viability or location but rather inefficiencies on the part of the federal government. As with offshore drilling, long processes resulting from government inefficiencies create an unnecessary burden on industry. In some cases, waiting for a federal permit can take 10 times longer than it does at the state level. In 2013, the average wait for the federal government to approve a request was 194 days,[9] compared to 27 days in North Dakota, 11 days in Texas, and 45 in Pennsylvania.[10] Federal ownership disincentivizes production on non-federal lands located adjacent to or interspersed with federal lands. Since production on federal lands is much more difficult, drilling may make economic sense only if a company has access to both the federal land and the non-federal land. Open Access and Grant States Control Excessive regulations and bureaucratic inefficiencies have stymied oil production and prevented the full effects of the energy boom. Opening up the rest of the Outer Continental Shelf to exploration and oil production would allow this to occur. As the experience with federal lands that are technically open to exploration and drilling has indicated, having access is only one of the changes that must be made. Another step the federal government needs to take to allow for growth is to reduce time-consuming and costly regulations by streamlining the process. The efficiency that has been demonstrated at the state level shows that it is possible to quickly process a high volume of requests. In fact, one of the primary reasons shale oil and shale gas production has been so successful both economically and environmentally is state management. State regulators and private land owners have decentralized knowledge and the proper incentives to promote economic growth while protecting their environment. They are the ones who have the most to gain when the management of natural resources and economic activity is handled properly, and they also have the most to lose if those are mismanaged. The federal government owns nearly one-third of U.S. territory. Congress should consider privatizing some of that land, but in the meantime, transferring the management of federal lands to state regulators would encourage energy resource development on the federal estate while maintaining strong environmental protections. The Federal Land Freedom Act of 2013 (S. 1233 and H.R. 2511), introduced by Senator James Inhofe (R–OK) and Representative Diane Black (R–TN), would do just that by allocating more authority to the states to control their energy future.[11] Increasing Energy Opportunities Due to a lack of access and excessive federal regulation, the full effects and potential of America’s energy boom have yet to be felt. Streamlining and simplifying the approval process by devolving decisions to the states, along with opening up more regions for development, would allow the U.S. to harness its full energy potential.

Status quo efforts don’t give enough state ownership-only the CP solves

Robin Craig, University of Utah Law Prof, Summer 1993, “Treating Offshore Submerged Lands as Public Lands: A Historical Perspective,” Public Law and Resources Law Review, http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1365&context=plrlr //RX

This article suggests that efficiency would be enhanced if states owned the OCS lands off their coasts. They would then take into account all of the benefits and costs of leasing and, as long as they acted to maximize the welfare of their citizens, would lease the efficient amount of land. There are no "energy security" benefits from increasing OCS oil and gas production, so there are no national benefits from development that the states would not consider. In addition, any national benefits from not developing can be internalized through the conditional grants of the CZMA or a similar program. Revenue-sharing and allowing states and environmental groups to bid for leases are both inferior to state-ownership but better than the status quo. Both might be more feasible in the short run given the amount of revenues that OCS leases bring the federal Treasury and the persistent federal budget deficit. Nonetheless, a "grandfathering" plan that leaves existing, producing leases in the hands of the federal government and gives  responsibility for new leases to the states does not appear to be out of the realm of possibility. Historically, it has been acts of Congress that have determined ownership of the submerged lands, not the Constitution.4 Moreover, some areas may currently be drains on the federal government more than revenue-raisers. For example, many oil companies are losing interest in California despite the great oil and gas potential there. In addition, in July 1990, President Bush placed several OCS areas under a leasing moratorium. The MMS estimates that the lost revenues from the first year of the moratorium amounted to $2 billion. 1 In addition, because of drilling moratoria, the government is discussing buying back some existing leases. The MMS estimates the cost of buying back 73 leases off the Florida coast south of Naples at between $270 and $497 million.42 Policymakers should seriously consider state-ownership as a viable alternative to the present system.

Federal bureaucracy inhibits success – state action solves better

Loris 5/7. Nicolas D. Loris, Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. May 7, 2014. Federal Regulations and Federal Ownership Limit Oil Production Potential. The Heritage Foundation. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/05/federal-regulations-and-federal-ownership-limit-oil-production-potential //NM

Excessive regulations and bureaucratic inefficiencies have stymied oil production and prevented the full effects of the energy boom. Opening up the rest of the Outer Continental Shelf to exploration and oil production would allow this to occur.¶ As the experience with federal lands that are technically open to exploration and drilling has indicated, having access is only one of the changes that must be made. Another step the federal government needs to take to allow for growth is to reduce time-consuming and costly regulations by streamlining the process. The efficiency that has been demonstrated at the state level shows that it is possible to quickly process a high volume of requests.¶ In fact, one of the primary reasons shale oil and shale gas production has been so successful both economically and environmentally is state management. State regulators and private land owners have decentralized knowledge and the proper incentives to promote economic growth while protecting their environment. They are the ones who have the most to gain when the management of natural resources and economic activity is handled properly, and theyalso have the most to lose if those are mismanaged.¶ The federal government owns nearly one-third of U.S. territory. Congress should consider privatizing some of that land, but in the meantime, transferring the management of federal lands to state regulators would encourage energy resource development on the federal estate while maintaining strong environmental protections. The Federal Land Freedom Act of 2013 (S. 1233 and H.R. 2511), introduced by Senator James Inhofe (R–OK) and Representative Diane Black (R–TN), would do just that by allocating more authority to t