Offshore Parity Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Ezell, Mike [R-MS-4]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 3, 2026
Bottom line
The bill shifts significant federal offshore management responsibilities and associated revenues for oil, gas, and fisheries to Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, potentially altering the economic and environmental landscape of the Gulf.
What it actually does
This bill, the "Offshore Parity Act of 2026," proposes to delegate federal authority over certain submerged lands in the Gulf of America to Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Specifically, it expands the states' management jurisdiction from 3 geographical miles to 3 marine leagues (approximately 9 nautical miles) seaward of their coastlines for oil, gas, and other energy activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and for fisheries management under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The delegation for energy activities is conditional on states meeting certain criteria within five years.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue the bill provides equity to these states by aligning their seaward boundaries with those of other Gulf states like Texas and Florida, which already manage out to 3 marine leagues. They contend it will improve local management of resources, protect existing leaseholder rights, and enhance fisheries management through closer state oversight, ultimately benefiting the states' economies and environmental stewardship.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that delegating federal authority over the Outer Continental Shelf could lead to inconsistent regulatory standards, potentially weakening environmental protections or safety oversight for offshore energy activities. Concerns could also be raised about the potential loss of federal revenue from new leases and the capacity of states to manage these expanded areas effectively without creating undue burdens on lessees or impacting national interests.
The bill is relatively short and its core provisions are clear, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its main implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 3(a) of the bill, adding new Section 34 to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
Delegation of Management of Oil, Gas, and Other Energy Activities on Expanded Submerged Land
This provision allows Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama to request and receive delegation of federal authority to manage oil, gas, and other energy leases on a newly defined "expanded submerged land." This land extends from 3 geographical miles to 3 marine leagues (approximately 9 nautical miles) seaward of their coastlines. The delegation is conditional on the states demonstrating adequate resources and effective administration within five years.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this delegation provides equity, allowing these states to manage their offshore resources similarly to Texas and Florida, fostering local economic development and more responsive regulation.
Critics contend
Critics might express concern that state-level management could lead to less stringent environmental or safety regulations compared to federal standards, or create a patchwork of regulations that complicates operations for industry.
Tradeoffs
Balances state autonomy and economic benefit against federal oversight, potentially uniform regulation, and national environmental standards.
Section 3(a) of the bill, adding new Section 34(c) to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
Conditions and Revenue Rules for Delegated Authority
This section outlines specific conditions for the delegated authority. It states that no lease or tract can be divided, existing federal leases remain subject to delegation, states are not required to create a 5-year leasing plan, and states can collect revenues from new leases. Importantly, federal revenue sharing provisions (OCSLA Sec. 9, GOMESA Sec. 105) will not apply to new state-granted leases, meaning states keep 100% of new lease revenue. States must also indemnify the U.S. for liability related to existing leases and take over surety bonds for decommissioning.
Section 3(b) of the bill, amending Section 8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
Redefinition of Seaward Boundary for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama
This provision formally redefines the "seaward boundary" for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to mean 3 marine leagues (approximately 9 nautical miles) seaward of their coastlines. This change is specifically for the purposes of Section 8(g) of OCSLA, which deals with revenue sharing from oil and gas leasing.
Section 4(a) of the bill, amending Section 306(a)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Extension of State Fisheries Management Jurisdiction
This provision extends the fisheries management jurisdiction of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi to 3 marine leagues seaward of their coastlines. This means these states will have primary authority over fisheries within this expanded zone, subject to certain federal carve-outs.
Section 4(b) of the bill.
Federal Authority Preservation for Fisheries
This section clarifies that the expansion of state fisheries jurisdiction does not limit federal authority over highly migratory species (like tuna or swordfish), threatened or endangered species, or fishery resources subject to international agreements. It also affirms federal authority in the exclusive economic zone beyond the extended state waters and for matters of national security or international obligations within the extended state waters.
Requires a state to which authority is delegated to indemnify the United States for any liability to existing leaseholders resulting from the delegation or state management, specifically for taking of property interest or breach of contract. The Secretary can deduct these amounts from other payments to the state.
Section 3(a), new OCSLA Section 34(c)(6).
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define liabilities when transferring authority, but its financial implications could be significant.
Case for: Ensures the federal government is not left holding the bag for liabilities arising from a state's management decisions or the act of delegation itself, providing a necessary safeguard for federal taxpayers.
Case against: States might argue this places an undue financial risk on them, especially if the liabilities are substantial or unforeseen, potentially making them hesitant to accept delegation.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, depending on future legal challenges or contract disputes related to existing federal leases.
Requires the Secretary to transfer surety bonds for existing oil, gas, or other energy leases to the applicable state within 90 days of delegation. The state must then ensure decommissioning is carried out per federal law. If the Secretary fails to transfer bonds, the Secretary remains responsible for decommissioning.
Section 3(a), new OCSLA Section 34(c)(7).
Why it matters:Technical detail about financial instruments, but crucial for environmental responsibility and financial risk.
Case for: Ensures that the financial responsibility for decommissioning offshore facilities, a major environmental and financial concern, is clearly transferred along with management authority, or retained by the federal government if bonds aren't transferred.
Case against: States might find the process of managing these transferred bonds and overseeing decommissioning complex and resource-intensive, especially for older facilities with potentially insufficient bond amounts.
Estimated impact: Potentially hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in decommissioning costs for existing infrastructure, with the financial burden shifting to states (if bonds are sufficient) or remaining with the federal government (if bonds are not transferred or are insufficient).