[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 221, ``HYDROGRAPHIC SERVICES IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENTS ACT''; H.R.
1176, ``KEEP AMERICA'S WATERFRONTS WORKING ACT''; AND S. 140, TO AMEND
THE WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE WATER RIGHTS QUANTIFICATION ACT OF
2010 TO CLARIFY THE USE OF AMOUNTS IN THE WMAT SETTLEMENT FUND
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, November 2, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-26
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
27-441 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Chairman Emeritus Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Louie Gohmert, TX Jim Costa, CA
Vice Chairman Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Doug Lamborn, CO CNMI
Robert J. Wittman, VA Niki Tsongas, MA
Tom McClintock, CA Jared Huffman, CA
Stevan Pearce, NM Vice Ranking Member
Glenn Thompson, PA Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Norma J. Torres, CA
Scott R. Tipton, CO Ruben Gallego, AZ
Doug LaMalfa, CA Colleen Hanabusa, HI
Jeff Denham, CA Nanette Diaz Barragan, CA
Paul Cook, CA Darren Soto, FL
Bruce Westerman, AR A. Donald McEachin, VA
Garret Graves, LA Anthony G. Brown, MD
Jody B. Hice, GA Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS Jimmy Gomez, CA
Darin LaHood, IL
Daniel Webster, FL
Jack Bergman, MI
Liz Cheney, WY
Mike Johnson, LA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Greg Gianforte, MT
Cody Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Chairman
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Democratic Member
Robert J. Wittman, VA Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Jim Costa, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Nanette Diaz Barragan, CA
Jeff Denham, CA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Garret Graves, LA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jody B. Hice, GA CNMI
Daniel Webster, FL Jimmy Gomez, CA
Vice Chairman Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Mike Johnson, LA
Greg Gianforte, MT
Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, November 2, 2017....................... 1
Statement of Members:
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Callender, Russell, Assistant Administrator for Ocean
Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Washington, DC............................................. 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
LePage, Hon. Paul, Governor, State of Maine, Augusta, Maine.. 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Millar, David, Government Accounts Director, Fugro,
Frederick, Maryland........................................ 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Pingree, Hon. Chellie, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maine............................................. 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Snyder, Robert, President, Island Institute, Rockland, Maine. 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Velasquez, Hon. Kasey, Vice-Chairman, White Mountain Apache
Tribe, Whiteriver, Arizona................................. 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alaska.................................................. 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 45
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 221, TO REAUTHORIZE THE HYDROGRAPHIC
SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1998, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
``HYDROGRAPHIC SERVICES IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENTS ACT''; H.R. 1176, TO
AMEND THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972 TO ESTABLISH A WORKING
WATERFRONT TASK FORCE AND A WORKING WATERFRONTS GRANT PROGRAM, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES, ``KEEP AMERICA'S WATERFRONTS WORKING ACT''; AND S. 140,
TO AMEND THE WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE WATER RIGHTS QUANTIFICATION
ACT OF 2010 TO CLARIFY THE USE OF AMOUNTS IN THE WMAT SETTLEMENT FUND
----------
Thursday, November 2, 2017
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:37 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doug Lamborn
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Lamborn, Wittman, Gosar, Bishop;
Huffman, Beyer, and Bordallo.
Also present: Representatives Young; and Pingree.
Mr. Lamborn. The Water, Power and Oceans Subcommittee meets
today to hear testimony on H.R. 221, sponsored by
Representative Don Young of Alaska; H.R. 1176, sponsored by
Representative Pingree of Maine; and Senate Bill 140, sponsored
by Senator Flake of Arizona.
I want to thank you all for your patience. This was
originally set for 10:00 a.m., but we had a very important and
very exciting Republican conference that I had to be at, and
those on my side of the aisle had to be at this morning. We did
not anticipate that, but there were last-minute changes earlier
in the week to today. So, thank you for your indulgence, thank
all of you for being here, either in the audience or to
testify.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chairman, Ranking Minority Member,
and the Vice Chair. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all
other Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing
record if they are submitted to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5:00
p.m. today.
Without objection, so ordered.
We will begin with opening statements, starting with
myself, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Lamborn. The Water, Power and Oceans Subcommittee meets
today to consider three bills that nearly span the wide range
of our Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
The first bill we will consider today is H.R. 221, the
Hydrographic Services Improvement Amendments Act, introduced by
our colleague, Don Young of Alaska. This bill, championed by
the Alaska delegation in the House--the entire delegation--and
the Senate reauthorizes NOAA's critical ocean surveying and
mapping program.
Congress first authorized ocean surveys in U.S. waters more
than 200 years ago. Since then, this program has collected
critical data on the ocean floor and navigation channels that
have supported a myriad of ocean-related economic activities
such as fishing, trade, and energy development.
While NOAA has covered a lot of ground with this program,
inferior techniques and technologies have aided in a
significant backlog of U.S. waters that are not adequately
mapped. We will hear testimony today on the real dangers that
are presented when our Nation's navigation channels are
improperly mapped, or have features that are not even mapped at
all.
While it may not be a surprise that a Federal agency has
been slow to adopt efficient techniques and technologies, the
private sector has stepped up to the challenge to help NOAA
chip away at their dangerous backlog under this program. Mr.
Young's bill supports the partnership between NOAA and
companies such as Fugro that have access to the resources and
advanced technologies that can map the ocean floor in a
fraction of the time, and likely cheaper than it would take the
Federal Government to conduct the same surveys.
Today, we will also consider H.R. 1176, the Keep America's
Waterfronts Working Act, introduced by Ms. Pingree of Maine.
This bill establishes a grant program within the Coastal Zone
Management Act for states to utilize and preserve working
waterfronts in the 35 eligible coastal and Great Lakes states.
This bill also establishes a Federal task force led by the
Secretary of the Interior to identify and address state needs
with respect to working waterfronts.
While the Coastal Zone Management Program has largely been
a state-driven program, this bill inserts layers of Federal
bureaucracy that seem to run counter to the congressional
intent of the original Act. It is unclear why, under the bill,
the Department of the Interior is responsible for the Federal
task force, while the Department of Commerce administers the
grant program. We will need to clarify and discuss how the
working waterfronts covenants required under the bill would
impact private property rights for waterfront owners.
I do look forward to gaining a better understanding of
these and other provisions within the bill, and I want to thank
Congresswoman Pingree for coming before the Subcommittee today
to testify on her bill.
I would also like to recognize and thank Governor LePage of
Maine for taking the time out of his busy schedule to come to
DC to testify before our Subcommittee on this legislation. I
cannot overstate how critical it is, especially for this
Committee, to have a state perspective on resource management
activities. Whether it is the Endangered Species Act management
in the West, or management of our coastal resources in the
East, state input is invaluable.
Finally, the Subcommittee will consider Senate Bill 140,
sponsored by Senator Flake of Arizona. This bill amends the
White Mountain Apache Tribe's standing water rights settlement
to clarify a use of funds already allocated under that
settlement to complete the Tribe's rural water system. While
this bill is merely a technical correction, we will hear today
how important it is for the Tribe to finish construction of
their water system.
I want to thank the witnesses for traveling here to be with
us today. Your input is extremely valuable as we work through
the legislative process. I look forward to hearing your
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Doug Lamborn, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Water, Power and Oceans
The Water, Power and Oceans Subcommittee meets today to consider
three bills that nearly span the wide range of our Subcommittee's
jurisdiction.
The first bill we will consider today is H.R. 221, the Hydrographic
Services Improvement Amendments Act, introduced by our colleague Don
Young of Alaska. This bill, championed by the Alaska delegation in the
House and the Senate, reauthorizes NOAA's critical ocean surveying and
mapping program. Congress first authorized ocean surveys in U.S. waters
more than 200 years ago. Since then, this program has collected
critical data on the ocean floor and navigation channels that have
supported a myriad of ocean-related economic activities such as
fishing, trade, and energy development.
While NOAA has covered a lot of ground with this program, inferior
techniques and technologies have resulted in a significant backlog of
U.S. waters that are not adequately mapped. We will hear testimony
today on the real dangers that are presented when our Nation's
navigation channels are improperly mapped or have features that are not
mapped at all. While it may not be a surprise that a Federal agency has
been slow to adopt efficient techniques and technologies, the private
sector has stepped up to the challenge to help NOAA chip away at their
dangerous backlog under this program. Mr. Young's bill supports the
partnership between NOAA and companies such as Fugro that have access
to the resources and advanced technologies that can map the ocean floor
in a fraction of the time--and usually at a fraction of the cost--that
it would take the Federal Government to conduct the same surveys.
Today, we will also consider H.R. 1176, the Keep America's
Waterfronts Working Act, introduced by Ms. Pingree of Maine. This bill
establishes a grant program within the Coastal Zone Management Act for
states to utilize and preserve working waterfronts in the 35 eligible
coastal and Great Lakes states. This bill also establishes a Federal
task force--led by the Secretary of the Interior--to identify and
address state needs with respect to working waterfronts. While the
Coastal Zone Management Program has largely been a state-driven
program, this bill inserts layers of Federal bureaucracy that seem to
run counter to the congressional intent of the original Act. It is
unclear why--under the bill--the Department of the Interior is
responsible for the Federal task force, while the Department of
Commerce administers the grant program. We also need to clarify how the
``working waterfront covenants'' required under the bill would impact
private property rights for waterfront owners. I look forward to
gaining a better understanding of these and other provisions within the
bill, and I want to thank Congresswoman Pingree for coming before the
Subcommittee today to testify on her bill.
I also want to recognize and thank Governor LePage of Maine for
taking the time out of his busy schedule to come down to DC to testify
before our Subcommittee on this legislation. I cannot overstate how
critical it is--especially for this Committee--to have a state
perspective on resource management activities. Whether it is Endangered
Species Act management in the West or management of our coastal
resources in the East, your input is invaluable.
Finally, the Subcommittee will consider S. 140, sponsored by
Senator Flake of Arizona. This bill amends the White Mountain Apache
Tribe's standing water rights settlement to clarify a use of funds
already allocated under that settlement to complete the Tribe's rural
water system. While this bill is merely a technical correction, we will
hear today how important it is for the Tribe to finish construction of
their water system.
I want to thank the witnesses for traveling here to be with us
today. Your input is extremely valuable as we work through the
legislative process, and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
______
Mr. Lamborn. I would now like to recognize the Ranking
Member, Mr. Huffman of California, for 5 minutes for his
statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
Welcome to the witnesses. I appreciate the fact that we are
here today talking about bills that have bipartisan support,
and that is a good thing. I think there is a lot of work we can
do together with this Subcommittee, and I am grateful for the
opportunity to talk about bills that reflect that kind of
bipartisan problem-solving opportunity.
Starting with H.R. 1176, Keep America's Waterfronts Working
Act, by Ms. Pingree, this is a bipartisan attempt to provide
much-needed Federal support for working waterfronts across our
country. I thank Ms. Pingree for this. She is thinking about,
of course, the working waterfronts in Maine, but I have some
wonderful working waterfronts in my district in Northern
California, as well. And I think they would benefit a lot from
this piece of legislation.
Commercial fishermen, of course, need a place to land their
catch. Recreational anglers need to rely on harbors and marinas
to reach their favorite fishing spots. Aquaculture,
boatbuilding, and tourism businesses all depend on safe harbors
and access to coastal waters.
It is important to remember that these and other coastal
and ocean industries employ over 2 million people in this
country and contribute over $200 billion to our economy every
year. This bill establishes the first Federal program to
protect and improve working waterfronts that are so integral to
these coastal economies. It would also protect public access,
promote community participation, and bring together Federal,
state, and local partners to collaborate on revitalizing these
waterfronts.
Bringing together this kind of collaboration and this team
is not bureaucracy, it is forward thinking legislation that can
really make a difference for these communities and these
waterfronts and for our economy.
You know, it is interesting. In my district, we are very
clear that everybody shares and depends on a healthy, well-
managed coast. We have some of the best shellfish growers in
America in Humboldt and Tomales Bays. And they are right next
to kayakers, surfers, and bird watchers. And that is all right
next to some of the most expansive seagrass beds and sensitive
estuarine ecosystems. Fishing vessels that I see docked in
Bodega Bay and Trinidad are neighbors to local restaurants that
serve fresh seafood.
And all of this works together, and it is exactly this kind
of balanced and diverse use that makes our waterfronts the
heart of many coastal communities in my district and beyond.
So, I think this is a great bill. I like the fact that it
recognizes the historic, social, and economic importance of
waterfronts, recognizes the importance of Federal investments.
The Coastal Zone Management Act has helped states work with
Federal Government to best manage these areas for several
decades, and I think it is appropriate that this bill expands
the scope of this Act to protect and promote working
waterfronts.
I also look forward to discussing H.R. 221, Mr. Young's
Hydrographic Services Improvement Amendments Act, also an
important subject. It reauthorizes funding for vital navigation
and safety services for NOAA's Office of Coast Survey. This is
an important arm of the Federal Government. It maintains over
1,000 charts and publications used by Federal and state
agencies, private organizations, and the public.
It is no small feat to do this for our Nation's 95,000
miles of shoreline and 3.4 million square nautical miles of
water. So, I want to thank Chairman Young for introducing this
bill. I think it is really important that we ensure Federal
capacity for hydrographic surveys, for mapping and charting.
These vessels do a wide range of activities and inform
decisions with a lot of economic, environmental, and safety
impacts.
And then, finally, Senator Flake's S. 140. This is a bill
that clarifies the funding that Congress has already authorized
important to protect drinking water interests in Indian
Country. I think this is a good bipartisan piece of
legislation, and I look forward to discussing it and the other
bills this morning.
With that, I will yield the balance of my time and thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am glad to see bipartisan support for the bills that we are
discussing today. We don't always agree on legislation in this
Subcommittee, but there are ways that we can and should work together.
I'd like to thank my colleagues for making that happen.
I'll start with H.R. 1176, the Keep America's Waterfronts Working
Act. This bipartisan bill provides much-needed Federal support for
working waterfronts across the Nation, from Maine to my district in
California. Working waterfronts are essential to coastal businesses and
communities. Commercial fishermen need a place to land their catch,
recreational anglers rely on harbors and marinas to reach their
favorite fishing spots, and aquaculture, boat building, and tourism
businesses all depend on safe harbors and access to coastal waters.
These and other coastal and ocean industries employ over 2 million
Americans and contribute over $200 billion to our economy each year.
This bill would establish the first Federal program to protect and
improve the working waterfronts that are integral to our coastal
economies. It would also protect public access, promote community
participation, and bring together Federal, state, and local partners to
collaborate on waterfront revitalization efforts.
Productive working waterfronts in my district demonstrate the
importance of planning and cooperation. These coastal communities are
able to balance economic development, the environment, and public
access and recreation because everyone shares and depends on a healthy,
well-managed coast. We have some of the best shellfish growers in
Humboldt and Tomales Bays, where there are also kayakers, surfers, and
bird watchers among expansive seagrass beds and estuarine ecosystems.
Fishing vessels docked at harbors from Bodega Bay to Trinidad are
neighbors to local restaurants serving fresh seafood and residents
fishing from a nearby pier. It is exactly these kinds of balanced and
diverse uses that make waterfronts the heart of many coastal
communities in my district and beyond.
In summary, H.R. 1176 recognizes the historic, social, and economic
importance of waterfronts and provides the support that states need to
maintain them. Coastal communities have weathered their share of tough
conditions, but Federal investment ensures that they remain resilient,
especially as changing oceans and increasing development threaten
businesses. The Coastal Zone Management Act has helped states work with
the Federal Government to best manage their coastal assets for the past
few decades, and it is fitting that this bill expands the scope of this
Act to protect and promote working waterfronts as part of effective
coastal zone management.
I also look forward to discussing H.R. 221, the Hydrographic
Services Improvement Amendments Act. This bill reauthorizes funding for
vital navigation and safety services of NOAA's Office of Coast Survey,
which maintains over a thousand charts and publications used by Federal
and state agencies, private organizations, and the public. It is no
small feat to do this for our Nation's 95,000 miles of shoreline and
3.4 million square nautical miles of water.
I'd like to thank my colleague Chairman Young for introducing this
bill. It is critical that we ensure Federal capacity for hydrographic
surveys, mapping, and charting. NOAA vessels and data support a wide
range of activities and inform decisions with significant economic,
environmental, and safety impacts.
As we face rapidly changing ocean conditions, hydrographic services
will only become more important. This is particularly true in the
Arctic, where we will eventually see ice-free summers. It is not a
matter of if, but when and how soon. With that comes an entirely new
seascape for maritime commerce and transport, defense, and natural
resources. This bill allocates specific amounts to Arctic surveys, but
I am concerned that the current language may constrain NOAA's capacity
in the region, and I hope to discuss this further today.
Last, we'll hear about S. 140. This bill makes a small change to a
previously-approved water rights settlement in order to allow the White
Mountain Apache Tribe in Arizona to complete work on a rural water
system. Specifically, the bill clarifies that funding Congress has
already authorized for ``water-related economic development'' projects
can be used to cover possible construction cost over-runs associated
with the Tribe's main water project, which will provide drinking water
supplies for tribal members once completed. I'm glad we're discussing
this bill today, and I welcome future discussions on this Subcommittee
about Indian water rights settlements and the serious problem of
drinking water shortages in Indian Country.
With that, I'd like to thank all of our witness for being here
today. I look forward to a productive discussion.
I yield back.
______
Mr. Lamborn. All right. Thank you. We will now move to our
first witness panel to hear testimony from Ms. Pingree of Maine
on her bill.
As a reminder, you are limited to 5 minutes, but your
written statement will appear in full in the hearing record.
Ms. Pingree, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to testify on
H.R. 1176.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHELLIE PINGREE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Chairman Lamborn and
Ranking Member Huffman and to the other members of the
Committee and to Mr. Young, who is with the Committee here
today. Chairman Young, I sometimes call Maine Alaska Lite
because our states have an awful lot in common, only everything
there is bigger and colder.
I am very happy to testify on the Keep America's
Waterfronts Working Act to talk a little bit about some of the
things you have already discussed, the importance of supporting
our working waterfronts, supporting our coastal communities,
which I think this Committee is very well aware of, and hear
from constituents across the country about the importance of
people who make their living on the waterfront, whether it is
boatbuilders on the West Coast, recreational fishermen in the
Gulf of Mexico, commercial fishermen in the Gulf of Maine, the
refrain is always the same: Water-dependent businesses along
the coast need help in preserving and protecting their vital
waterfront access.
I wanted to start by just quickly showing a video, with the
indulgence of the Committee, and then I will just have a few
comments after that.
So, if we could make the technology work.
[Video shown.]
Ms. Pingree. Thank you. And if that doesn't make you want
to visit the coast of Maine and have some delicious lobster--I
am sure the Governor would join me in welcoming you to our
state any time.
But as you heard from the fishermen, it is a simple
concept. When the working waterfront is gone, there is no way
to replace it. And once it disappears, there is just no way to
bring it back.
As you heard, that is not just true in Maine. In 2009, when
the National Working Waterfront Network compiled their
statistics, they found that communities with working
waterfronts support 3.4 percent of the country's GDP, almost 5
percent of total U.S. employment.
In Maine, specifically, it is our hardworking fishermen and
lobstermen, an industry worth about $700 million in overall
value, including a dockside value of about $533 million.
But we have other waterfront industries. Boatbuilding, one
of our state's oldest industries, we have about 80 boatbuilders
who employ 1,400 workers with wages totaling about $59 million.
And others, industries like marinas, energy-related industries,
shipping, things that happen in all states.
At the state level we have the Maine Working Waterfront
Access Protection Program, something all states should have,
but we need more support. In this bill, I see a role for the
Federal Government, not duplicating the efforts of the state,
but maximizing dollars. The grant program that we have created
is voluntary and allows states to decide if they want to
participate in it. The working waterfront plans allow each
state, rather than Congress or the Federal Government, to say
what kinds of working waterfronts are important to that state.
I think the Federal Government should support states in
these efforts and encourage states to consider the importance
of supporting working waterfront infrastructure while
recognizing each state has different needs.
I have been pleased to work on this bill with many of my
colleagues in Congress over the years that I have been here,
and have Congressman Wittman of Virginia, another waterfront
state, as a participant and lead co-sponsor on this bill. It is
a bipartisan bill, it would establish a working waterfronts
grant program, and it would create a Working Waterfront Task
Force that would bring many of the agencies together to work
together and come to the table.
It is true that NOAA already has a Coastal Zone Management
Program to address this effort. What this would do is make sure
that some of the funds are dedicated specifically for this
work.
I live on an island off the coast of Maine, and we have 14
year-round islands. I take a ferry that is an hour to get home.
It is in the heart of the lobster-landing territory of the
world, another reason you should come and visit, because it
just doesn't get any better. But I have seen families who are
stretched, who cannot afford to pay for the property taxes, who
are the last holders of working waterfront.
In my town, the little bit of working waterfront that we
have is where fishermen get their repairs, where they fuel up,
where oil and gas is delivered to our community by boat. It is
a critical part of both our recreational and commercial life in
our community and in so many others.
I am just going to close with a quote from a lobsterman in
Friendship, Maine, another serious lobster fishing community of
about 1,100 people. He said, ``As a lobsterman working on the
regional ocean planning process, I've always said that
fishermen need two basic things: a healthy stock to fish on,
and the ability to access that resource. The access begins in
the harbor at the shoreline. Without places to work on, store,
load and unload their catch, gear, and boats, fishing, as we
know it in Maine, will cease to exist.'' And that would be true
in many other places.
Again, I thank you for your indulgence, and I appreciate
your taking up this bill today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pingree follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Chellie Pingree, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Maine on H.R. 1176
Thank you, Chairman Lamborn and Ranking Member Huffman, for
allowing me to testify today about the Keep America's Waterfronts
Working Act and the issue of working waterfronts generally. This is an
important issue that I have been working on since coming to Congress.
And I am eager to talk about it, and call attention to it whenever I
can.
This Subcommittee knows well the importance of supporting our
coastal communities. You hear on a regular basis, from constituents
from across the country who make their living on the water. Whether
they are boatbuilders from the West Coast, or recreational fishermen in
the Gulf of Mexico, or commercial fishermen in the Gulf of Maine, the
refrain is the same--that our water-dependent businesses along our
coasts need help in preserving and protecting vital waterfront access.
I have a short 1-minute video that is actually produced by the
Island Institute in my state, and that you will hear from in a later
panel, to explain a little bit more about what a Working Waterfront is
and what it means in Maine.
Could the Clerk please start the video, and I thank the Chair and
the staff for their indulgence in allowing it.
[VIDEO PLAYS.]
So, as you can see, the men and women who work on the waterfront
want to STAY there--these are their communities and their work.
Unfortunately, waterfront access is quickly disappearing under
pressure from incompatible development. Our fishermen already have
concerns about changes in the oceans, storm surge OR migration patterns
in fish, OR changes in their lobstertraps--things they have never seen
before in their traps. But when you add to these issues, the loss of
access, it truly puts our communities, and their economies at risk.
According to the National Working Waterfront Network, in 2009 when
they compiled their statistics on the footprint of Working Waterfronts
they found that these communities support over 3.4 percent of the
country's total GDP. They also found that they support almost 5 percent
of total U.S. employment.
For Maine, specifically, we rely on our hardworking fishermen and
lobstermen. Our commercial fishery is part of our core. In 2016,
Maine's fishing industry topped $700 million in overall value,
including a dockside value for the lobster fishery of $533 million.
Boatbuilding is one of the state's oldest industries, and we have
nearly 80 boat builders employing nearly 1,400 workers, with wages
totaling about $59 million.
Maine's aquaculture sector has a direct economic impact of $73.4
million in output, and over 550 jobs. This is an industry that has
tripled in the past 10 years.
To support these industries, we need to do more. At the state level
in Maine, we have a Maine Working Waterfront Access Protection Program,
and although this program is wonderful, it's not enough.
For example, there are 22 working waterfront projects in Maine
funded by the program and there are new applications coming due to the
demand.
The Federal Government should be supporting this work with the same
dedication that we have at the state level in some states--not
duplicating efforts but maximizing dollars, bringing in more resources
and making sure that the goals and plans that communities create can be
brought to life.
The grant program created by this bill is voluntary and it allows
states to decide if they want to participate in it. The working
waterfront plans allow each state, rather than Congress or the Federal
Government to say what kinds of working waterfronts are most important
to that state.
The Federal Government should support states in these efforts and
encourage states to consider the importance of supporting working
waterfront infrastructure while recognizing that each state has
different needs.
Seeing these needs, I have worked with my colleagues in the past
Congresses and have been proud to work with Congressman Wittman of
Virginia, to raise this issue and make sure that we call attention to
Working Waterfronts with some concrete steps.
The bipartisan bill before us today would establish a working
waterfront grants program and, it would create a Working Waterfront
Task Force that would identify crucial needs and bring various Federal
agencies to the table on this issue.
I know that NOAA already does great work in this area and also that
they have the authority under the CZMA to address this effort. What our
bill would do, is make sure we dedicate resources for this specific
work.
Beyond this bill, there is more to be done and I have been working
on another piece of legislation that is still in discussion draft
stages to address if we can additionally support coastal communities
through changes to the Magnuson Stevens Act.
We need to look at various ways to help coastal areas and that is
why I am so grateful for this hearing today. I would welcome an
opportunity for the Subcommittee to move the bill if possible.
In closing, I would like to read a quote from one of my
constituents about the need for this work. This statement is from a
fisherman from Friendship Maine, a community of about 1,100, ``As a
lobsterman working on the regional ocean planning process, I've always
said that fishermen need two basic things: a healthy stock to fish on,
and the ability to access that resource. That access begins in the
harbor at the shoreline. Without places to work on, store, load and
unload their catch, gear and boats, fishing, as we know it in Maine,
will cease to exist.''
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I look
forward to the next panel.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you for your testimony, Representative.
You are welcome to join us for the remainder of the hearing,
but if you need to meet other obligations you are excused, and
we will understand.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Lamborn. Now I would like to recognize Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, I would like, before the
Congresslady leaves, the ethics rules allow us to distribute
product that is collected or manufactured within a state.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Young. And if I am right, there are 18 members on this
Committee. And I do know you have--because I want to thank you
for your hospitality--one of the finest lobster packing plants
up there, and there is no better way to sell a program than to
see the real product broiled, or boiled, or steamed, along with
butter. So, it is just a suggestion, that is all I am saying.
Ms. Pingree. Can I just say that I am always happy to take
advice from a more senior and more experienced Member. And if
it would help the Committee to see favorably----
[Laughter.]
Ms. Pingree [continuing]. I know they would remain
impartial. But just in the gesture of friendship, I will do my
best to fulfill that promise.
Mr. Young. Thank you.
Mr. Lamborn. Now I would like to recognize Mr. Young for 5
minutes to testify on his bill, if he would care to.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any
lobsters. But I do have crab. Thank you for taking up this
bill. I was an original co-sponsor on this bill, and was
Chairman of the Committee at that time, with Jim Saxton in
1998. My current legislation would reauthorize the Act through
2022 and allow NOAA to conduct and contract hydrographic
surveys around the United States, with special specifics for
the Arctic.
As you know, Alaska is the Arctic. And that makes the
United States an Arctic Nation. And we sorely need mapping for
the future traffic that goes around, over the Northwest
Passage, and we need this badly.
Of course, we know that we have in Alaska 550,000 square
nautical miles in the Arctic itself--this is the EEZ zone--and
would take decades to survey that space. We would like to get
it done a lot sooner, so we won't have any big accidents.
Waters, again--to give you an idea, the mouth of the Yukon
River, the last time it was surveyed was 1899. This is one of
the major transportation corridors that go into the interior.
Port Clarence is currently being surveyed to update the area,
because it is a new shipping port which will happen. And I need
it to happen.
But we have, all around the United States, areas that we
don't know for sure what is there, and mapping is badly needed.
To give you an example, Houston, for instance, has some sunk
ships, and they say in the approximate area. Imagine what would
happen if you ran into one of those sunk ships with a big
tanker.
So, we have this need for this bill. It is really a
reauthorization. I urge the passage of it, and I think it
should be done. I am proud of the bill itself and the work that
NOAA does, but they are so far behind, we wanted them to have
the ability to do a contract whenever necessary to get this job
done.
With that, I yield back and urge the passage of the bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Don Young, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Alaska on H.R. 221
Thank you Chairman Lamborn and Ranking Member Huffman for
considering my bill, H.R. 221 the Hydrographic Services Improvements
Amendments Act.
I was an original co-sponsor and Chairman of this Committee when
Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ) introduced the Hydrographic Services
Improvements Act in 1998. My current legislation will reauthorize the
Act through 2022 and will allow NOAA to conduct and contract for
hydrographic surveys around the United States with a specific focus on
the Arctic.
Alaska is what makes the United States an Arctic nation. My state
has more coastline than any other state in this country, and we don't
know what's under the surface. We are seeing a significant increase in
vessel traffic, exploration, and resource development in our Arctic
waters. While hydrographic surveys are a critical part of maritime
safety, economic, and environmental efforts nationwide, they are
especially important in the Arctic.
There are over 550,000 square nautical miles in the U.S. Arctic
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and it would take decades to survey even
half of that space. NOAA has designed 38,000 miles as survey priority
areas, and estimates range up to 25 years to survey just those priority
areas if resources remain at their current level.
Alaskan waters are incredibly under surveyed. Before this year, the
last time the entrances and mouth to the Yukon River were surveyed was
1899. This river is the most effective route to deliver food and goods
to coastal and inland villages in western Alaska, and the last on-the-
ground surveys were completed the same year that gold was discovered in
Nome.
Another region, Port Clarence, is currently being surveyed to
update areas that have been avoided by shipping traffic because they
don't know how deep the water is. This Port has been identified as a
major development priority for Alaska and the Arctic, but there are
still areas that ships avoid because we don't have accurate depth
measurements.
Outside of Alaska, we have areas like Puget Sound in Washington
that desperately needs updated survey data for the deep draft vessel
traffic transiting to Seattle and Tacoma.
Around Houston, Texas, there are old shipwrecks and obstructions
with their positions labeled as ``approximate'' on navigation charts.
This is a real hazard to the oil tankers that travel to and from Port
Houston.
Authorization for the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act expired
in 2012. My bill would reauthorize the program through 2022, and
authorizes the use of appropriated funds to collect data and conduct
surveys in the Arctic. I thank the Committee for considering this
legislation.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. I would also like to ask unanimous
consent that the gentlewoman from Maine, Ms. Pingree, be
allowed to join us at the dais and participate for the
remainder of the hearing.
Seeing no objection, so ordered.
I would now like to call forward our second panel of
witnesses. As they come forward, I will introduce them.
Our first witness is the Honorable Paul LePage, Governor of
the State of Maine; our second witness is the Honorable Kasey
Velasquez, Vice Chairman of the White Mountain Apache Tribe
from Whiteriver, Arizona; our third witness is Dr. Russell
Callender, Assistant Administrator for Ocean Service and
Coastal Zone Management for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, from Washington, DC; our fourth
witness is Mr. Robert Snyder, President of the Island Institute
from Rockland, Maine; and our final witness is Dr. David
Millar, Government Accounts Director for the Americas for Fugro
from Frederick, Maryland.
Thank you all for taking the time to be here. Each witness'
written testimony will appear in full in the hearing record, so
I ask that witnesses keep their oral statements to 5 minutes,
as outlined in our invitation letter to you, and under
Committee Rule 4(a).
I would also like to explain how our timing lights work.
When you are recognized, press the talk button to activate your
microphone. Once you begin your testimony, the Clerk will start
the timer and a green light will appear. After 4 minutes, a
yellow light will appear, and at that time you should begin to
conclude your statement. At 5 minutes, the red light will come
on. You may complete your sentence, but I would ask that you
stop at that point.
Governor LePage, thank you for being here. You are now
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL LePAGE, GOVERNOR, STATE OF MAINE,
AUGUSTA, MAINE
Governor LePage. Thank you, Chairman Lamborn, Ranking
Member Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for
the opportunity to speak today regarding H.R. 1176, the Keep
America's Waterfronts Working Act.
Keeping waterfronts working is of utmost importance to the
coastal economy in Maine. Access to water frontage for
commercial fishing, agriculture, and other water-dependent
businesses is imperative if we are going to sustain and grow
jobs, particularly in the more rural areas of our state.
Maine voters have overwhelmingly demonstrated their support
for marine economy again and again in recent years, including a
2005 referendum that authorized a constitutional amendment
allowing current use valuation for land used for commercial
fishing activities.
Voters have also supported bond initiatives over the last
12 years, and supported the Maine Working Waterfront Access
Protection Program, which has protected 25 properties for
commercial fishing access, totaling over 2.5 miles of coastline
and benefiting over 1,100 fishermen.
Maine's coastline is over 5,300 miles, including the
islands and the peninsulas. And this week, I will tell you,
with the recent storm, we know it. There is no power in most of
the state.
But only 175 miles of the coast has sufficient water depth
and protection from weather to sustain business uses. Business
use is further limited by the fact that only 20 of these miles
have accessible low and high tide access at all times.
As development pressures increase in busy harbors, such as
the city of Portland, and wealthy summer visitors buy up ocean
frontage in mid-coast and down east Maine, high property tax
burdens are making it more and more difficult for fishing
families to hold on to waterfront properties that have been in
these families for generations.
Like many states, most of the waterfront businesses in
Maine are small businesses, family owned and run businesses,
and they face ever-increasing regulatory burden of compliance
from Federal agencies. This bill would add to that burden.
The mechanism laid out in the bill are simply not the way
to achieve the goal of keeping our waterfronts working.
Reducing taxes, improving the science that underlies fisheries
management, eliminating a burdensome and unnecessary regulation
on small business and fair trade policies are far more
important. However, they are not addressed in this bill.
First, any work truly intended to ensure ongoing access for
commercial enterprise should be led by the Department of
Commerce, rather than the Department of the Interior. The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has
responsibility for fisheries and coastal management. The
Coastal Zone Management Act appropriately balances states'
rights and the interest of industry with appropriate
conservation marine resources. Adding another layer of Federal
bureaucracy on the states and private enterprise is unnecessary
and inappropriate, especially since additional resources could
already be provided through existing programs without new laws,
planning, or oversight from the Department of the Interior.
In fact, Maine recently moved our coastal program from the
Department of Agriculture Conservation Forestry to the
Department of Marine Resources to better align the needs of the
coastal industries with the resources and expertise already
available under our existing Federal, state, and local
partnerships.
The Coastal Zone Management Act now allows the state to
prioritize working waterfront within the coastal management
plan, as Maine has done. There is no reason why the Secretary
of the Interior should have a role in this program. The
Department of Commerce and the state of Maine are already
authorized to do so. The proposed grant program in the bill
would fund the improvements, acquisition of land, or interest
in land for working waterfront protection, which may be held by
a private citizen, organization, or municipality.
However, the burden falls squarely on the shoulders of the
state to ensure that the funding is appropriately applied at
the time the award is made. Furthermore, the state would be
obligated to ensure the property continues to allow public
access to monitor the covenants on the property apparently into
perpetuity. If a violation of a covenant occurs decades from
now, the state would be obligated to manage this.
As governor, I have witnessed far too many cases of the
Federal Government's inability to quickly address problems
facing citizens across Maine. The government delay in
addressing erosion around the Saco River has caused devastation
for homeowners in the area. The delay in coming to an agreement
with the European Union on the trade deal has significantly
hurt Maine's lobster industry by placing them in a serious
disadvantage with Canada.
[The prepared statement of Governor LePage follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul R. LePage, Governor, State of Maine on
H.R. 1176
Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today regarding
H.R. 1176, the ``Keep America's Waterfronts Working Act.'' Keeping
waterfronts working is of the utmost importance to the coastal economy
in Maine. Access to waterfrontage for commercial fishing, aquaculture
and other water-dependent businesses is imperative if we are going to
sustain and grow jobs, particularly in the more rural coastal counties
of Maine. Maine voters have overwhelmingly demonstrated their support
for the marine economy again and again in recent years, including a
2005 referendum that authorized a constitutional amendment allowing
current use valuation for land used for commercial fishing activities.
Voters have also supported four bond initiatives over the last 12 years
that supported the Maine Working Waterfront Access Protection Program,
which has protected 25 properties for commercial fishing access,
totaling over 2\1/2\ miles of coastline and benefiting over 1,100
fishermen.
Maine's coastline is over 5,300 miles long when you include all the
islands and long peninsulas. But only 175 miles of the coast have
sufficient water depth and protection from weather to sustain business
uses. Business use is further limited by the fact that only 20 of those
miles are accessible at all tides. As development pressures increase in
busy harbors, such as the city of Portland, and wealthy summer visitors
buy up ocean frontage in Mid-coast and Down-east Maine, high property
tax burdens are making it more and more difficult for fishing families
to hold on to waterfront property that have been in their families for
generations. Like many states, most of our waterfront businesses in
Maine are small businesses, family owned and run, and they face an
ever-increasing regulatory burden of compliance from Federal agencies.
This bill would add to that burden. The mechanisms laid out in this
bill are simply not the way to achieve the goal of keeping our
waterfronts working. Reducing taxes, improving the science that
underlies fisheries management, elimination of burdensome and
unnecessary regulations on small businesses and fair trade policies are
much more important. However, they are not addressed in this bill.
First, any work truly intended to ensure ongoing access for
commercial enterprises should be led by the Department of Commerce,
rather than the Department of the Interior. The Department of
Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has
responsibility for fisheries and coastal management. The Coastal Zone
Management Act appropriately balances states' rights and the interests
of industry with appropriate conservation of marine resources. Adding
another layer of Federal bureaucracy onto the states and private
enterprise is unnecessary and inappropriate, especially since
additional resources could already be provided through existing
programs without new laws, planning or oversight from the Department of
the Interior. In fact, Maine recently moved our coastal program from
the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry to the
Department of Marine Resources to better align the needs of our coastal
industries and communities with the resources and expertise already
available under our existing Federal-state-local partnership. The
Coastal Zone Management Act now allows states to prioritize working
waterfront within their coastal management plans, as Maine has done.
There is no reason why the Secretary of the Interior should have a role
in that, since the Department of Commerce and the state of Maine are
already authorized to do so.
The proposed grant program in the bill would fund the improvements,
acquisition of land, or interests in land, for working waterfront
protection, which may be held by a private citizen, organization or
municipality. However, the burden falls squarely on the shoulders of
the state to ensure that the funding is appropriately applied at the
time the award is made. Furthermore, the state would be obligated to
ensure the property continues to allow public access and to monitor the
covenants on the property apparently in perpetuity. If a violation of
the covenant occurred a decade from now, the state would be obligated
to take action. And all of this would have to be done with no more than
5 percent administrative costs for a one-time award. I cannot, nor
should any governor, in good conscience, accept one-time funds that
will leave the state on the hook for administrative obligations and
costs incurred well into the future.
Finally, creation of a multi-agency task force at the Federal level
may unnecessarily delay the opportunity to take meaningful actions to
preserve waterfront infrastructure, and it may create the potential for
agencies with tenuous connections to working waterfronts to exert even
more control over private enterprise. Maine's working waterfront
program focuses on implementation, rather than endless planning.
According to a recent EDA report, there are already 80 Federal
financing programs in place under which working waterfront properties
would be eligible. How many of these existing programs are adequately
funded to achieve their goals? Authorization of a new, targeted
competitive grant program is meaningless without funding. As written,
the program only serves to layer additional planning and reporting
obligations onto the state with little hope of ever receiving limited
Federal dollars.
As governor, I have witnessed far too many cases of the Federal
Government's inability to quickly address problems facing citizens
across Maine. The government's delay in addressing erosion along the
Saco River has caused devastation for homeowners in the area. The delay
in coming to an agreement with the European Union on a trade deal is
significantly hurting Maine's lobster industry by placing them at a
serious disadvantage with Canada. President Obama's administration
disregarded the will of Mainers and established a national monument in
northern Maine at a time when Interior is strained with a $11.3 billion
maintenance backlog. Without adequate funding for maintenance, I fear
the monument will be more susceptible to a forest fire similar to the
``Great Fire'' in Acadia National Park in 1947. These examples reflect
how the Federal Government is unable to quickly address existing
issues--it will only get worse if new programs are added.
Instead of creating this new program, our small businesses, fishing
families and lobster co-ops would benefit much more from regulatory
reform that reduced their costs of doing business, tax reforms that
reduced their financial burden and a trade policy that protects their
interests by keeping the playing field level. There will be significant
regional variability regarding the challenges working waterfronts and
coastal communities face, so the Federal Government should leave the
details to the states. Instead, the Federal Government should focus its
efforts on streamlining environmental regulations to facilitate nimble
business development in the face of changing environmental and economic
conditions.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Governor, thank you for being here and for
your testimony.
Governor LePage. You are very welcome.
Mr. Lamborn. Now I would like to recognize Vice Chairman
Velasquez for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. KASEY VELASQUEZ, VICE-CHAIRMAN, WHITE
MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE, WHITERIVER, ARIZONA
Mr. Velasquez. Good morning, Chairman Lamborn, Ranking
Member Huffman, and members of the Committee. [Speaking in
native language]. My name is Kasey Velasquez, I am the Vice-
Chairman of the Tribal Council of the White Mountain Apache
Tribe. I come to Washington, DC, with great respect for your
work, and bring with me the prayers of our people.
Honorable Chairman Lupe was, unfortunately, not able to
attend this hearing. He sends his regrets. He asked me to
testify in his place.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of
Senate Bill 140, and thank you, Mr. Gosar, for your support in
moving this vital legislation for the White Mountain Apache
Tribe.
Our people have lived in eastern Arizona since time
immemorial. The headwaters of the White River arise on our
reservation and merge with the Black River to become the Salt
River, which flows south to the Phoenix Valley. Water flowing
from our Apache homeland built the skyscrapers there.
Ironically, despite hundreds of miles of streams on our land,
our own economic development has been stifled by a lack of
safe, clean, and reliable drinking water for our people,
housing, schools, hospital, and reservation residents. The
reason is Mother Nature.
We have very little groundwater on our reservation, yet
14,000 people, almost our entire population, are dependent upon
a declining well field that was built approximately two decades
ago. That decline is not reversible. Production is down to half
of what it was in 1999. There is no recharge.
There is also arsenic in our groundwater, natural arsenic
in our groundwater. We have to blend it to meet EPA standards.
Drinking water must be hauled by hand in one community and
piped in another. New housing is needed to meet long-time and
backlogged demand, but without reliable drinking water supply
it cannot be built.
Congress recognized in the White Mountain Apache Tribe
Waters Act that our current and future drinking water needs
could only be met by surface water. And then only by building a
rural water system, including a dam and a small reservoir with
6,000 acre-feet of active storage, a treatment plant, and a 55-
mile pipeline to deliver the treated water to our communities.
Section 312 of the Water Rights authorizes up to $78.5
million in the settlement fund for water-related economic
development projects, among other listed purposes. Congress
gave us broad discretion on how to use the $78.5 million.
Importantly, the White Mountain Apache Tribe waived significant
water right claims against the Federal Government, the state of
Arizona, and other downstream water users in consideration for
this funding.
After the Water Rights Act became law, our engineer
consultants discovered previously unknown potential seepage and
the stability conditions in the foundation materials at the dam
site. They advised that there will be a construction cost over-
run to build a dam and reservoir. We are certain, however, that
any cost over-run will not exceed the total amount already
authorized in the Water Rights Act for the rural water system,
the settlement fund, and the cost over-runs.
Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office has confirmed
that S. 140 is budget neutral. We have always understood that
the funding authorized by Congress for water-related economic
development projects would naturally include using money from
the settlement fund, if necessary, to pay for any cost over-run
to complete the rural water system, a water-related economic
development project in its own right.
We, therefore, become concerned that the Department of the
Interior advised that it was not absolutely clear, from its
perspective, whether the settlement fund could be used to pay
cost over-run to build the rural water system. Enactment of
Senate Bill 140 will assure Interior that the settlement fund,
as needed, could be used to complete the rural water system.
As I testify before you today, I am mindful of an image and
a hope that I have held for years, that I would be fortunate to
live long enough to see a child in the community of Carrizo
casually open a faucet on a kitchen sink to fill a glass with
clean water, something they cannot do today.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Velasquez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kasey Velasquez, Tribal Vice Chairman of the
White Mountain Apache Tribe, Fort Apache Indian Reservation, Arizona on
S. 140
Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Huffman and members of the
Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S.
140--a Bill to amend the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights
Quantification Act of 2010 to clarify the use of amounts in the WMAT
Settlement Fund.
My name is Kasey Velasquez, and I am the Tribal Vice Chairman of
the White Mountain Apache Tribe. We live on the Fort Apache Indian
Reservation upon aboriginal lands which we have occupied since time
immemorial. Our reservation is located about 200 miles northeast of
Phoenix in the White Mountain Region of east central Arizona.
The Tribe's current water sources and antiquated infrastructure
have been and continue to be grossly inadequate to meet the current
demands and needs of our reservation communities. Fortunately, in 2009
we agreed to a quantification of our aboriginal and federally reserved
water rights with various state parties following decades of
litigation, and Congress then enacted the White Mountain Apache Tribe
Water Rights Quantification Act \1\ (``Quantification Act'') (P.L. 111-
291). The cornerstone of that Act, which confirmed the 2009 Water
Rights Quantification Agreement and Settlement, is the authorization
for the design and construction of the White Mountain Apache Tribe
Rural Water System (the ``Rural Water System'') (P.L. 111-291), which
will bring desperately needed safe and reliable drinking water to our
tribe and its members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act
became Title III of the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (the ``Act'').
P.L. 111-291.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 140 is needed to clarify the intent of a provision in the Act
concerning the Rural Water System and will enable us to shift some
amounts of already authorized spending among authorized activities.
Specifically, the legislation would clarify Congress' intent to allow
the Tribe to use the existing authority under Section 312(b)(2) of the
Act for ``water-related economic development'' projects to complete the
construction of the Rural Water System.
If this issue is not resolved, the completion of the Rural Water
System project will be threatened, thereby increasing the ultimate cost
to the United States and delaying the delivery of life-sustaining
drinking water to our reservation communities.
fort apache indian reservation and the tribe's reserved water rights
The Tribe holds full beneficial title to 1.66 million acres of
trust land in the east central highlands of the state of Arizona. The
Tribe's Fort Apache Indian Reservation was established by Executive
Order in 1871. We have retained actual, exclusive, use, and occupancy
of our aboriginal lands within the boundaries we agreed to, and the
boundaries were later designated by the Executive Orders dated November
9, 1871, and December 14, 1872, without exception, reservation, or
limitation since time immemorial. The Tribe's vested property rights,
including its aboriginal and other Federal reserved rights to the use
of water, often referred to as Winters Doctrine Water Rights, that
underlie, border, and traverse our lands, have never been extinguished
by the United States and are prior and paramount to all rights to the
use of water in the Gila River drainage, of which the Salt River is a
major source.
Except for a small portion of the reservation that drains to the
Little Colorado River Basin, virtually our entire reservation drains to
the Salt River. The headwaters and tributaries of the Salt River arise
on our reservation and are the principal sources of water for the Tribe
and the greater metropolitan Phoenix area. Specifically, 78 percent of
the water in Theodore Roosevelt Reservoir located north of the Phoenix
Valley is contributed from our reservation; at Saguaro Lake Reservoir,
further south, 60 percent of the water is contributed from our
reservation; and below the confluence of the Verde River and Salt
River, near Granite Reef Dam, Scottsdale, 42 percent of the water comes
from our reservation. The importance of achieving implementation of our
2009 Water Rights Quantification Agreement is essential to the well-
being of the White Mountain Apache Tribe and the downstream water users
in the Phoenix Valley.
white mountain apache tribe water rights quantification act of 2010
In 2010, Congress approved the historic White Mountain Apache Tribe
Water Rights Quantification Act as part of the Claims Resolution Act of
2010 (P.L. 111-291). The legislation was sponsored in by Senator
McCain, now-retired Senator Jon Kyl, and the entire Arizona delegation
in the House. Importantly, the Act was budget neutral.
The Quantification Act resolved the Tribe's water related damage
and reserved water rights claims against the United States, the state
of Arizona, and a number of state parties in regards to rights in the
Little Colorado River and the Gila River (Salt River and Tributaries
thereto). In consideration for the Tribe waiving its water related
claims and prior reserved rights, the Act authorized funding for the
construction of the Rural Water System--comprised of a dam and
reservoir, treatment plant, and a 55 miles of pipeline to serve
virtually every reservation community. In addition, the Act also
authorized funding for, among other things: (1) cost-overruns for the
Rural Water System (Sec. 312(e)) and (2) ``water-related economic
development projects'' as part of the WMAT Settlement Fund (Sec.
312(b)).
The White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification
Agreement, which was respectfully negotiated amongst all parties, was
formally approved by the White Mountain Apache Tribe and all parties,
including the Secretary of the Interior, and subsequently approved by
the Superior Courts (Apache County and Maricopa County Superior Court)
of the state of Arizona on December 18, 2014. The White Mountain Apache
Tribe Water Rights Quantification Settlement Judgment and Decree was
filed in Maricopa County and Apache County on March 15, 2015. The
Judgments and Decrees become enforceable on the date that the White
Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act becomes
enforceable with the publication by the Secretary of the Record of
Decision allowing the construction of the Rural Water System project to
go forward.
the tribe's drinking water crisis
The driving force behind the 2009 water rights settlement and the
2010 Quantification Act was the long-standing need to provide a
reliable and safe water supply and delivery system to the members of
the White Mountain Apache Tribe. The Tribe and Reservation residents
are in urgent need of a long-term solution for their drinking water
needs. Currently, the Tribe is served by the Miner Flat Well Field.
Well production has fallen sharply and is in irreversible decline. Over
the last decade, well production has fallen by 50 percent. A small
diversion project on the North Fork of the White River was constructed
several years ago to compensate for the precipitous loss of well
production, but this was only a temporary fix and drinking water
shortages remain a chronic problem. The Tribe experiences annual summer
drinking water shortages, and there is no prospect for groundwater
recovery as there is little or no groundwater on the reservation. The
quality of the existing water sources threatens the health of our
membership and other reservation residents, including the Indian Health
Service Regional Hospital and State and Bureau of Indian Affairs
schools. The only viable solution is the replacement of failing
groundwater resources with surface water from the North Fork of the
White River.
Without reservoir storage behind Miner Flat Dam, a feature
authorized by the Act, the stream flows of the North Fork of the White
River, supplemented by short-term capacity of the Miner Flat Well
Field, are together inadequate to meet current, much less future,
community demands of the White Mountain Apache Tribe in the Greater
Whiteriver Area, Cedar Creek, Carrizo, and Cibecue and to maintain a
minimum flow in the North Fork of the White River. The demands of the
Tribe for its Rural Water System will literally dry up the North Fork
of the White River before 2020, even in combination with a supplemental
supply from the Miner Flat Well Field. Therefore, Miner Flat Dam is
necessary to store 6,000 acre feet of water during runoff periods for
release and enhancement of the North Fork of the White River to not
only meet demands of the Reservation Rural Water System, but to
maintain a minimum flow required for aquatic and riparian habitat
preservation and enhancement.
In sum, the Rural Water System will replace the failing and
terminal groundwater well system and enable the Tribe to construct a
secure, safe, and reliable drinking water supply for the current 15,000
White Mountain Apache Tribal members and residents living on our
reservation and to meet the increasing drinking water needs of the
reservation for a future population of nearly 40,000 persons in the
decades to come.
need for technical clarification
After passage of the Act, the Tribe used a prior loan from
Reclamation to continue work on the design and geotechnical plan for
the proposed dam site of the Rural Water System. In the course of this
work, the Tribe's consulting engineers discovered potential seepage and
stability conditions in the foundation material at the dam site than
had not been previously known. The cost-overrun funding necessary to
address these design and construction issues will in no event be
greater than the total amounts authorized in Sections 312(a), (b), and
(e), of the Act which respectively authorized the Rural Water System,
the WMAT Settlement Fund, and cost-overruns for the System.
The WMAT Settlement Fund authorized in Section 312(b)(2) of the
legislation was written sufficiently broad to authorize the use of the
fund for cost-overruns. Consistent with the goals of self-determination
and self-sufficiency, Congress intended the Tribe to have wide
discretion on how to use and prioritize any of the authorized uses in
Section 312(b)(2)(C), which, as noted, includes the very broad category
of ``water-related economic development projects.'' This intent--that
we would have wide discretion on the use of these funds--has always
been our understanding, and we have relied on that belief. Since the
Rural Water System will serve a number of water-related activities from
housing to hydropower, it fits squarely within the Settlement Fund's
authorized purposes. For example, the System will provide: (1) water
for new and existing housing on the reservation and other municipal
needs; (2) water for existing irrigation; (3) the ability to expand
irrigation (approximately 2,000 acres); (4) improvements to the
Alchesay fish hatchery; (5) lake-based recreation for fishing and non-
motorized boats; and (6) the potential for small-scale hydro-electric
(approximately 2 megawatts). Given the importance of the Rural Water
System and its economic development purposes, the Tribe is willing to
use this existing authorization to complete the Rural Water System in
lieu of other development alternatives listed in Section 312(b).
Recognizing that the Rural Water System was the cornerstone of the
Act and the consideration for the settlement of the Tribe's water
rights, Congress provided sufficient flexibility in its funding
authorization to ensure that funding for the Rural Water System could
be accessed from various authorizations, including Sections 312(a),
(b), and (e). The Secretary is only authorized to require changes to
the design of the Rural Water System if it cannot be constructed ``for
the amounts made available under Section 312.'' Sec. 307(c)(2)(B)(iii).
Section 307 does not limit how funds within Section 312 can be used,
nor was it intended to.
Notwithstanding the language of the Act, the Department of the
Interior has indicated that it is not absolutely clear (from its
perspective) whether the Settlement Fund can be used for the System's
cost-overruns. Consequently, a technical amendment is necessary to
clarify that authorization authority exists in Section 312(b) for any
necessary cost-overruns associated with the WMAT Rural Water System.
The importance of our water rights settlement and the WMAT Rural
Water System to the health and welfare of our people cannot be
overstated. We must ensure its timely design and completion by
resolving the cost issue within the Act's existing authorization now,
not later. This legislation would clarify that we have the necessary
authorization to complete the project. If it is not resolved, the
completion of the project will be threatened, thereby increasing the
ultimate cost to the United States and delaying the delivery of life-
sustaining drinking water to our reservation communities.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you for your testimony and for coming
all the way to be here today.
Dr. Callender, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RUSSELL CALLENDER, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
OCEAN SERVICES, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Dr. Callender. Good morning, Chairman Lamborn, Ranking
Member Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is
Russell Callender. I am the Assistant Administrator for Ocean
Services and Coastal Zone Management at the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA. In this capacity, I
serve as the Director of NOAA's National Ocean Service.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on
legislation that would amend authorities for National Ocean
Service programs. H.R. 221 would amend the Hydrographic
Services Improvement Act, and H.R. 1176, the Keep America's
Waterfronts Working Act, would amend the Coastal Zone
Management Act.
NOAA's hydrographic services date back to 1807, when the
survey of the coast was established by President Thomas
Jefferson. Today, these programs continue to support safe and
efficient commerce by providing mariners with information they
need to navigate the Nation's busy ports and waterways. While
these programs have historic roots, today they employ cutting-
edge science and technologies to provide more accurate and
timely information that meets the requirements of a modern
maritime nation.
The Hydrographic Services Improvement Act, or HSIA,
provides explicit authority for NOAA to provide services in
response to emergencies and disasters. The efforts of the men
and women working in these programs in response to this year's
storms was nothing less than stellar and often heroic.
We embedded NOAA navigation and spill response experts with
the U.S. Coast Guard before each storm. We acquired aerial
imagery for FEMA that was used to support first responders and
the distribution of resources. We conducted hydrographic
surveys from Texas to Puerto Rico, which informed the Coast
Guard's decision to reopen multiple ports.
NOAA supports HSIA reauthorization, and appreciates the
support of Congress for these missions and programs. The
legislation includes specific funding levels for various
programs. NOAA looks forward to working with the Subcommittee
to ensure that the funding levels are consistent with the
President's fiscal 2018 budget.
The Arctic is in particular need of modern hydrographic
services. Longer ice-free seasons are resulting in increased
vessel activity. NOAA is working to increase its Arctic
presence, while balancing the needs of other U.S. ports and
waterways. While NOAA has full authority to provide services
across the entire country, including Alaska, we have no
objection to the language authorizing activities in the Arctic.
NOAA is always working to improve program efficiency. We
are taking steps to contain administrative costs associated
with contract hydrographic surveys. We also know that the
acquisition of new survey data is only part of the task. Raw
data must be processed, quality assured, and ultimately be
provided to mariners in the form of updated charts.
We look forward to working with the Subcommittee to fully
understand the intent and effective language to limit
administrative expenses for hydrographic surveys.
Section 3 of the legislation would direct the Government
Accountability Office, or GAO, to conduct a cost comparison
study. Congress requested this study in February 2016, and GAO
completed it this past June 2017. NOAA is responding to GAO's
recommendations. Therefore, NOAA recommends this section of the
legislation be deleted. NOAA would welcome the opportunity to
brief the Subcommittee on this study and our efforts to
implement its recommendations.
H.R. 1176, Keep America's Waterfronts Working Act, would
amend the Coastal Zone Management Act, or CZMA, which has
served as a cornerstone for national coastal policy for 45
years. Under the CZMA, coastal states have discretion to use
funding to address the needs of working waterfronts, and many
states are doing so.
Although H.R. 1176 would give NOAA the authority to
administer grants subject to appropriations, it would grant the
Secretary of the Interior the authority to establish a Working
Waterfront Task Force. NOAA recommends that the Secretary of
Commerce be granted this authority. We look forward to working
with the Subcommittee on H.R. 1176.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I
appreciate the Subcommittee's time and attention to these
important issues, and look forward to the dialogue and
answering questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Callender follows:]
Prepared Statement of W. Russell Callender, Ph.D., Assistant
Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce on
H.R. 221 and H.R. 1176
introduction
Good morning Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Huffman, and members
of the Subcommittee. My name is Russell Callender, and I am the
Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management
at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), within
the Department of Commerce. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today on two pieces of legislation pending before the Committee.
NOAA is an agency that enriches life through science and science-
based services. From daily weather forecasts and severe storm warnings,
to fisheries management, coastal restoration and supporting maritime
commerce, NOAA supports economic vitality and affects more than one-
third of America's gross domestic product. NOAA applies cutting-edge
research, high-tech instrumentation and extensive network of
partnerships to provide citizens, planners, emergency managers and
other decision makers with the reliable information they need when they
need it.
NOAA's roots date back to 1807, when the Nation's first scientific
agency--the Survey of the Coast--was established by President Thomas
Jefferson. Since then, NOAA has evolved to meet the changing needs the
country and economy. NOAA maintains a presence in every state and has
emerged as a leader in providing a broad range of science and useful
services to inform and improve decision making.
h.r. 221--the hydrographic services improvement amendments act
H.R. 221 would amend the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act
(HSIA) of 1998 in four ways: (1) authorizing HSIA activities through
Fiscal Year 2022; (2) specifically authorizing hydrographic data
collection in the U.S. Arctic for navigation safety and extended
Continental Shelf (ECS) delineation; (3) limiting administrative
expenses for hydrographic surveys; and (4) mandating a Government
Accountability Office (GAO) study comparing the unit costs of
hydrographic surveys conducted by NOAA and the unit costs of contract
hydrographic surveys. My statement will address each of these issues in
order.
H.R. 221 proposes to reauthorize the HSIA through FY 2022. NOAA
supports HSIA reauthorization. We encourage the Committee to authorize
funding levels consistent with the President's FY 2018 budget request
for NOAA in core coastal navigation and observing (e.g. surveys and
charts). This includes $27 million for hydrographic surveys, $35.8
million for geodetic functions and $32 million for tide and current
measurement functions.
H.R. 221 does not geographically define the U.S. Arctic, but in
general and for the purposes of this testimony, NOAA uses the
definition provided in the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 defines `Arctic' as
``all United States and foreign territory north of the Arctic Circle
and all United States territory north and west of the boundary formed
by the Porcupine, Yukon, and Kuskokwim Rivers; all contiguous seas,
including the Arctic Ocean and the Beaufort, Bering and Chukchi Seas;
and the Aleutian chain.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOAA recognizes the Arctic as a region in particular need of modern
hydrographic services as a result of increased maritime activity
involving energy, fishing and tourism. Our Arctic Vision and Strategy,
as well as our Arctic Nautical Charting Plan and the U.S. Coast Guard's
Arctic Strategy recognize the value of improved hydrographic services
to ensure safe, secure, and environmentally responsible Arctic maritime
activity and stewardship. NOAA already has full authority to provide
these services to Alaska and the U.S. Arctic and support Congress
highlighting this region as an emerging need.
Historically, remote Arctic waters have been relatively
inaccessible with low levels of maritime commerce. As interest in
Arctic economic uses grows, NOAA is working to increase its Arctic
presence while balancing investments in the region against the needs in
other U.S. navigationally significant areas that are also experiencing
increased ship traffic. In recent years NOAA has invested in
reconnaissance surveys by the NOAA Ship Fairweather up to and along the
North Slope; NOAA and contract hydrographic surveys in the Bering
Strait, Kotzebue, Kuskokwim, and the Krenitzin Islands regions; ECS
surveys in partnership with the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Geological
Survey, and Government of Canada; gravity data acquisition over
northern Alaska for accurate positioning; and shoreline mapping of the
north slope using the best available satellite data.
In August 2016, NOAA issued an update to its U.S. Arctic Nautical
Charting Plan, which identifies regions with inadequate chart coverage.
This update was informed by consultations with Arctic maritime
interests, the public, and other Federal, state, and local agencies, in
order to keep pace with the rapidly changing Arctic environment and the
associated increase in maritime commerce and oil and gas extraction
activities. NOAA also continues to work with the State Department, U.S.
Geological Survey, and other partners on ECS delineation. The data
acquisition phase for this effort in the Arctic is essentially
complete, and the focus has now shifted to analysis of the extent of
the U.S. continental shelf under international law. The exploration and
research conducted also helps to identify and evaluate potential new
marine resources, and to identify and characterize marine ecosystems
and habitats. NOAA is also developing water level measurement
technology that can endure the harsh climate of remote Arctic areas.
H.R. 221 includes a provision that would limit administrative
expenses for hydrographic surveys to 5 percent. The bill does not
specify to which funding this provision would apply, nor does it define
administrative expenses. NOAA already does, and will continue to, limit
the direct costs for administering contracts to 5 percent. But contract
surveying also incurs other costs associated with data processing and
charting, long-term archiving and delivery, infrastructure, and, most
importantly, data quality assurance.
Data quality assurance and control is an essential step in the data
acquisition process to ensure that delivered hydrographic data meets
the technical requirements of the contract or task order. This ensures
that charts and other products are accurate for safe navigation,
fishing, storm surge modeling and numerous other applications. The 5
percent limitation proposed in the bill is insufficient to cover these
other costs and could have a detrimental impact on NOAA's ability to
manage hydrographic survey contracts and apply acquired data to the
nautical chart in a timely fashion. It could result in replacing a
backlog of surveying requirements with a backlog of data to chart and
deliver to mariners. We look forward to working with the Committee to
clarify the bill's provision on administrative expenses.
Finally, the draft bill would authorize a GAO study to compare NOAA
and contract survey costs. However, GAO already conducted a study on
this, which began in February 2016 and was completed in June 2017. NOAA
currently is responding to GAO's recommendations and has already
delivered on several of them. NOAA would welcome the opportunity to
brief the Committee on the study and our efforts to implement its
recommendations.
h.r. 1176--keep america's waterfronts working act
H.R. 1176, Keep America's Waterfronts Working Act, would amend the
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), which has served as a cornerstone
for national coastal policy for 45 years. NOAA recognizes the CZMA is a
viable conduit to provide assistance to the Nation's working
waterfronts.
Although H.R. 1176 would give NOAA the authority to administer
grants (subject to appropriations), it would grant the Secretary of the
Interior the authority to establish a task force to ``identify and
address critical needs with respect to working waterfronts.'' Given
that the bill would amend the CZMA and directs NOAA to develop and
administer the grants program, NOAA recommends that the Secretary of
Commerce be granted the authority to establish the Working Waterfront
Task Force and appoint its members under Section 320(b)(1) as added to
the CZMA. NOAA also recommends that the definition of ``Secretary'' in
Section 320(m)(2) be clarified as Secretary of Commerce, acting through
NOAA. Finally, in Section 320(b)(2)(B) NOAA recommends that the
reference to the Coastal Services Center be updated and be replaced
with the ``Office for Coastal Management'' so that it reads
``representatives from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's Office for Coastal Management, the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the United States Geological Survey, the Navy, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, and such other Federal agencies as
the Secretary considers appropriate.''
NOAA is aware of the numerous challenges facing working waterfront
communities and provides support to address these challenges. Under the
CZMA, coastal states have discretion to use funding to address the
needs of working waterfronts, and many states are doing so. States use
grants authorized under Section 306 of the Act to support local
waterfront planning, as well as low-cost construction grants authorized
under Section 306A to build boardwalks, boat ramps, and public fishing
piers. Additionally, enhancement funds authorized under Section 309
provide support for waterfront Special Area Management Plans, which
share many of the goals of the working waterfront plans authorized
under H.R. 1176.
We share the Subcommittee's interest in assisting working
waterfront communities in coastal areas, and we look forward to working
with the Subcommittee on H.R. 1176.
conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this testimony on
these two pieces of legislation pending before the Committee. I
appreciate the Subcommittee's time and attention to these important
issues and I look forward to working with you further.
______
Mr. Lamborn. All right, and thank you.
Mr. Snyder, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT SNYDER, PRESIDENT, ISLAND INSTITUTE,
ROCKLAND, MAINE
Dr. Snyder. Good morning. Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member
Huffman, and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on H.R. 1176. My name is Rob
Snyder, and I am President of the Island Institute.
The Island Institute is a community development
organization based in Rockland, Maine that cares deeply about
working waterfronts. We work to sustain island and coastal
communities, and our highest priority is helping communities
strengthen and diversify their economies.
In fact, I have spent the last 15 years helping coastal
businesses and communities overcome significant challenges and
take advantage of opportunities to improve working waterfront
infrastructure. It was actually kind of nice to hear Governor
LePage reflect on the past 13 years of success of some of that
programming, particularly the creation of the Working
Waterfront Access pilot program in Maine.
So, the first point, which has been iterated over and over
again, is that working waterfronts are critical to our economy
in Maine and around the country. As Representative Pingree
noted, Maine is highly reliant on the lobster industry. In
fact, just three of Maine's communities--Rockland, my hometown;
Vinalhaven; and Stonington--land about $114 million worth of
lobster--they did that in 2015--almost equal to the value of
all the commercial fisheries in New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
and Connecticut, combined.
Every one of the 270,000 fishing trips Maine lobstermen
take each year starts and ends at a working waterfront. And
every pound of the $130 million of lobster that you guys want
to taste, all of that, all of that crosses a working waterfront
on its way to markets around the globe. Nationally, fishermen
land about $5.2 billion worth of fish, which means that the
lobster industry in Maine is responsible for about 10 percent
of the total value of commercial landings in this country.
The second point that I want you all to think about is that
this infrastructure and the associated businesses face a
variety of threats that emerge from beyond their local
communities. This is why I view it as a public policy issue.
First of all, access to markets matters. The ability to
access domestic international markets plays an important role
in the health of our coastal communities. Trade with Canada,
Europe, and China, as well as the strength of the dollar, have
all had a direct impact on the viability of our working
waterfronts.
The second aspect to this is that climate matters. An
unseasonably warm summer in 2012 in the ocean caused lobsters
to shed their shells 6 weeks early. The early shed led to an
unanticipated increase in the landings before processors were
ready to handle it. The price of the product tanked the
industry, fishing businesses struggled to make loan payments,
and our coastal communities lost about $50 million during that
time, just in those few weeks.
In addition to warming events, direct wave action from sea
level rise and also from storm surge can easily cause
significant damage to the docks, coolers, fuel tanks, and
parking lots, as unglamorous as they may sound, which are
critical to our working waterfronts. Despite these threats,
fishermen need these places that provide a physical connection
between the land and sea.
My third point that I think you also all understand very
well is that this issue has significant national constituency.
This is not just an issue for Maine fishermen. There is a
national constituency supporting small businesses that care
about this infrastructure.
Through years of experiencing connecting fishermen and
community leaders from Alaska, California, Louisiana, Florida,
North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and elsewhere, we find an
incredible commitment to supporting local working waterfronts,
and that commitment led to the creation of the national Working
Waterfront Network, which includes representatives from all of
our coastal states.
Working waterfronts are an issue that are important to tens
of thousands of people--actually, millions today--from
longshoremen, tugboat captains and crew, able-bodied seamen,
merchant marines, truck drivers, marine diesel mechanics,
welders, fabricators, and others who work at boatyards and
marinas, fishermen, clammers, aquaculture, seafood processors--
these are the people who rely on working waterfronts to help
make a living. These are the people who will benefit from this
program.
In conclusion, I am just going to scale back a little bit
and say, in the mid-1970s in this country we actually did
something incredibly bold, which was to claim 200 miles of
ocean around our entire perimeter for an exclusive economic
zone. We did that with the express purpose of maximizing the
economic benefit we would gain from our oceans that would
benefit not only the Nation, but also our coastal communities.
This working waterfront is an incredibly important part of
ensuring that we can continue to maximize the economic benefit
of that region for our Nation and for the places we care about.
And this program provides an incredibly important catalyst
that will take place everywhere where those grants are made.
People will have new kinds of discussions about how the
waterfront is evolving, and what their future is going to look
like, and how they want to invest in it from across the public
and private sector, and that is, I think, an incredible
opportunity for all of us.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Snyder follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rob Snyder, President, Island Institute on H.R.
1176
Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Huffman, members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Rob Snyder
and I'm the President of the Island Institute, a community development
organization based in Rockland, Maine. The Island Institute cares
deeply about working waterfronts. As an organization, we work to
sustain Maine's island and coastal communities and exchange ideas and
experiences to further the sustainability of communities in Maine and
elsewhere. I have spent the last 17 years helping coastal businesses
and communities overcome significant challenges and take advantage of
opportunities to improve their working waterfront infrastructure.
Just three of Maine's communities--Rockland, Vinalhaven, and
Stonington--landed about $114 million worth of lobster in 2015, almost
equal to the value of all of the commercial fisheries in New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, and Connecticut, combined. Everyone of the 270,000
fishing trips Maine lobstermen take each year starts at a working
waterfront and every pound of the 130 million pounds of lobster that
fishermen land, crosses a working waterfront on its way to markets
around the globe.
In fact, the American lobster, is the single most valuable species
landed in the entire United States and 80 percent of that catch comes
from Maine. Last year, the lobsters landed by Maine lobstermen were
valued at over $533 million. Nationally, fishermen landed $5.2 billion
worth of fish--which means the lobster industry in Maine is responsible
for about 10 percent of total value of commercial landings in the
country.
In Maine, our working waterfront infrastructure and the businesses
that they rely on face a variety of threats from shifts in the economy,
government policy and environment. For fish and aquaculture products,
the ability to access markets, and especially international markets,
plays an important role in the health of coastal communities. Trade
with Canada, Europe, and China as well as the strength of the dollar,
all have a direct bearing on the viability of businesses that need a
working waterfront.
Unseasonably warm waters in 2012 shifted the timing of the lobster
shed and lobsters shed their shells 6 weeks early. The early shed led
to a significant and unanticipated increase in landings before the
processors were ready to handle the increased product flow. The price
tanked, and fishing businesses struggled to make loan payments or pay
their crews.
Storm surge has the potential to structurally change the
communities and economy of our coast. Direct wave action or elevated
water levels in a protected cove can easily cause significant damage to
the infrastructure that supports fishing. From floating docks to bait
coolers and fuel tanks, there is a lot of important and expensive
infrastructure along the coast, and constraints placed on financing
properties in the flood zone exacerbate these issues. Fishermen need
these places that provide a connection between land and ocean. They are
the quintessential ``water-dependent, coastal related businesses.''
While the Island Institute is based in Maine and cares deeply about
communities in Maine, we know that communities across the country are
working on ideas and innovations that might help Maine's communities.
Through years of exchanging shared challenges, and solutions with
fishermen and community leaders from Alaska, California, Louisiana,
Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and elsewhere, we have
found an incredible commitment to supporting local working waterfronts.
Because of their importance to local economies, and in many cases to
the local identity, working waterfront conversations attract a wide
range of stakeholders.
Even at the national level, the issues facing our Nation's working
waterfronts attract a diverse group of stakeholders. The National
Working Waterfront Network brings together a variety of stakeholders
from every coastal state that includes businesses, industry
associations, community leaders, government agencies, and others to
help address shared challenges.
One underlying theme from across the country is that our Nation's
working waterfronts are only as strong as the businesses they support.
If the underlying business is struggling, the working waterfront falls
into disrepair. Even if a working waterfront hosts a strong business,
its prime location on the water may make it highly desirable.
Skyrocketing coastal property values, and increasing tax burdens can
put pressure on the owners to turn the property into condos or another
high value use.
Estimates from 2009 suggest that ocean-based economic activity
represents 3.4 percent of total U.S. GDP and 4.8 percent of total U.S.
employment--in 2009, there were over 130,000 business paying almost 2.4
million employees over $84 billion in wages and benefits. Much of this
activity is associated with a working waterfront. I would suggest that
congressional leaders are not paying enough attention to the specific
needs of small, water-dependent coastal businesses and we should be
asking questions about how we could be supporting and fostering
innovation on working waterfronts.
At their core, each working waterfront represents a local economic
and land use issue, but across the country, each of these working
waterfronts ends up facing many similar challenges. Whether it is a
small family owned marina in Florida, larger port infrastructure in
Washington, open access to facilities in California, or dredging the
channels in the Great Lakes, the challenges facing working waterfronts
have a Federal connection and Federal agencies are already involved in
working waterfront businesses. This raises questions about how Federal
agencies consider working waterfronts when they are awarding grants,
promulgating regulations, or making permitting decisions.
In addition to helping start a conversation about the issues above,
H.R. 1176 directly addresses a conclusion reached in a report that the
National Working Waterfront Network produced for the U.S. Economic
Development Administration. The report found that there are very few
Federal programs specifically available for working waterfronts and for
those that are available, working waterfronts are an ``allowable use of
funds'' rather than a ``primary use of funds.'' The report concluded
that for these programs, ``lack of specificity makes them ineffective
in addressing the drivers of change that threaten working
waterfronts.''
Investing in our Nation's working waterfront businesses, makes an
investment at the center of economic activity for our coasts.
Supporting these places and ensuring their long term viability as
working waterfront infrastructure provides a connection that goes well
beyond the bounds of the specific waterfront business. The benefits of
these investments will flow to the broader community, and particularly
in rural areas, will allow us to maximize the benefit from ocean
resources and enhance the strength of our coastal communities.
Thank you for your time.
*****
The following documents were submitted as supplements to Mr. Snyder's
testimony. These documents are part of the hearing record and are being
retained in the Committee's official files:
appendices and attachments
-- Island Institute--Waypoints--http://www.islandinstitute.org/
waypoints
-- Island Institute--Lobsters and Ocean Planning--http://
www.islandinstitute. org/resource/lobster-and-ocean-
planning
-- Island Institute--Last 20 Miles--http://www.islandinstitute.org/
resource/last-20-miles
-- Sustainable Working Waterfront Toolkit--http://
www.wateraccessus.com/docs/report/EDA_FinalReport.pdf
-- 2015 Fisheries of the United States, NOAA--https://
www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/commercial/fus/fus15/documents/
FUS2015.pdf
-- National Working Waterfronts and Waterways 2015 Symposium
Report--http://www.wateraccessus.com/docs/symposia/
senseofthesymposium2015.pdf
-- National Working Waterfront and Waterways 2013 Symposium
Report--http://depts.washington.edu/wwater13/Sense-of-the-
Symposium_Ir.pdf
-- National Working Waterfronts and Waterways 2010 Symposium
Report--http://www.wateraccessus.com/docs/symposia/
senseofthesymposium201O.pdf
-- National Working Waterfronts and Waterways 2007 Symposium
Report--http://www.wateraccessus.com/docs/symposia/
senseofthesymposium2007.pdf
______
Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you.
Mr. Millar, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID MILLAR, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTS DIRECTOR, FUGRO,
FREDERICK, MARYLAND
Mr. Millar. Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Huffman, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to
appear before you. My name is David Millar, and I am the
Government Accounts Director in the Americas for Fugro. I am
pleased to provide comments on H.R. 221 today.
Safe navigation in U.S. waters is vital to waterborne
commerce, commercial and recreational fishing, and tourism
around the country. It is also increasingly important for
national security and homeland security missions. My background
includes 28 years of experience with ocean and coastal mapping,
including the delivery of hydrographic survey services to NOAA.
Fugro is the world's leading independent provider of geo-
intelligence and asset integrity solutions for large
construction, infrastructure, and natural resource projects.
Our U.S. and Americas regional headquarters are located in
Houston, with 1,200 employees across 37 offices in 13 states.
Since 1997, Fugro has supported NOAA's Office of Coast
Survey in the execution of hydrographic surveys all over the
United States and its territories. Most recently, during the
2016 and 2017 survey seasons, Fugro was contracted to provide
hydrographic survey services of approximately 200 square
nautical miles in Penobscot Bay, Maine. Until these surveys,
mariners were relying on chart data that were between 67 and
142 years old.
In executing these surveys, Fugro verified in excess of
4,200 features, submitted 154 dangers to navigation, and
discovered one previously uncharted shipwreck. The surveys were
conducted during the peak lobster and tourism season, which
presented challenges due to high density of lobster traps and
vessel activity. To gain efficiency, reduce costs, and lower
risk to people and property, Fugro developed an innovative
survey plan that integrated aircraft, laser, and camera
technology, and vessel-based acoustic technology. This approach
allowed the project to be completed almost twice as fast as
traditional vessel-only surveys, and completely avoided
conflicts with the lobster fishery.
Much of the experience required to execute our work in
Maine came from years of conducting equally challenging surveys
in Alaska.
Nationwide, NOAA is responsible for maintaining over 1,000
charts and publications, covering 95,000 miles of shoreline and
3.4 million square nautical miles of water. Over one-third of
this area is located in Alaska, and as a result, the state has
always been high on NOAA's list of charting backlog priorities.
Fugro has been operating in Alaska since the mid-1980s and
has conducted more than 20 hydrographic surveys for NOAA in the
state, including areas where charts relied on measurements made
by Captain Cook in the late 1700s. Current and accurate
nautical charts are required to support shipping fisheries,
energy and natural resource expiration and development, as well
as naval and Coast Guard vessels responsible for patrolling and
protecting these waters.
Despite NOAA's efforts to decrease the charting backlog,
the need in Alaska is daunting, and at the current pace it will
take decades to address. Two recent incidents demonstrate the
stakes in this region.
First, in July 2015, the MV Fennica struck an uncharted
rock in Alaska's harbor, delaying Shell's operation in the
Chukchi Sea by more than a month.
Second, in June 2016, the chemical tanker MV Champion Ebony
ran aground on a non-charted shoal in southwest Alaska. She was
carrying more than 14.2 million gallons of fuel products and,
fortunately, was able to refloat without a spill.
Turning to provisions included in H.R. 221, I would first
like to thank Congressman Young for his strong support of the
hydrographic survey work in the United States. While NOAA, the
private sector, and many stakeholders who rely on accurate
navigational charts are important to this discussion, it has
been and continues to be Congress' role to determine levels of
funding and to identify key priorities.
As noted in the June 2017 GOA study on NOAA's use of
contract surveyors, the agency said it is expanding its use of
private-sector resources, but it is constrained, due to budget
limitations. Congress provided direction to the agency to
increase the use of contract surveyors in its 2009 amendments
to the Act, and I believe H.R. 221 will ensure that progress is
made to achieve this goal.
I know these are challenging budget times. However, I am
here to make the case that Congress should increase funding
levels to support accelerated work to eliminate the charting
backlog. Higher funding should cover contract survey work, as
well as NOAA's internal contributions to this mission.
Section 2 of H.R. 221 does increase the baseline levels for
contract survey work, which is very positive, and it is my
recommendation that Congress do as much as possible in this
area to achieve real progress.
Section 2(b) of the Act addresses funding and the Arctic
charting activities with more and larger vessels expected to be
operating in the Arctic Ocean in the future. The risks are
significant. I believe it is safe to say that funds invested
now through better navigational charts will be far less than
the cost of addressing a maritime casualty in the U.S. Arctic.
In conclusion, thank you for allowing me to give testimony
on this matter. I would be happy to answer your questions for
H.R. 221.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Millar follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Millar, Government Accounts Director--
Americas, Fugro on H.R. 221
Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you as
you consider a trio of water bills. My name is David Millar and I am
the Government Accounts Director--Americas for Fugro, based in
Frederick, Maryland. In particular, I will be providing comments on
H.R. 221, a bill to reauthorize the Hydrographic Services Improvement
Act of 1998. Safe navigation in U.S. waters is vital to waterborne
commerce, commercial and recreational fishing, and tourism around the
country. It is also increasingly important for national security and
homeland security missions.
My background includes 28 years of experience with marine
navigation and positioning, hydrographic survey, and ocean and coastal
mapping. I was recently appointed as Government Accounts Director--
Americas, where I serve as Fugro's key account manager for the U.S.
Government, other national governments within the Americas Region, the
United Nations, the World Bank, and other multilateral development
banks. In this capacity, I interface between Fugro's government
customers and all of Fugro's site characterization and asset integrity
service offerings across the company's land and marine divisions. I
also serve on the board of directors for The Maritime Alliance, as well
as the Establishment Board of Seabed 2030. For the 8 years prior to
this appointment, I served as the President of Fugro Pelagos, Inc., a
Fugro company specializing in hydrographic survey and ocean and coastal
mapping. My responsibilities included managing approximately 80 staff
and an annual budget of approximately $20M. I also oversaw the delivery
of hydrographic survey services to NOAA, as well as the expansion of
these services to other national hydrographic offices, including CHS
(Canada), UKHO (United Kingdom) and GCS (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia).
Fugro is the world's leading, independent provider of geo-
intelligence and asset integrity solutions for large construction,
infrastructure, and natural resource projects. We provide the technical
data and information required to design, construct, and maintain
structures and infrastructure in a safe, reliable, and efficient
manner. Our U.S. and Americas regional headquarters are located in
Houston, Texas, and we employ 1,200 employees across 37 offices in 13
states in the United States. Working predominantly in the energy and
infrastructure markets, we serve both public- and private-sector
clients on land and at sea.
Fugro has been a contractor for NOAA, National Ocean Service (NOS),
Office of Coast Survey (OCS) backlog support since the mid-1990s and
has been an industry partner with NOAA's University of New Hampshire
Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping/Joint Hydrographic Center (UNH
CCOM/JHC) for almost as long. Through this partnership, innovation,
research and development in the area of ocean and coastal mapping has
been successfully adopted and applied by Fugro to non-hydrographic
survey applications, such as deep ocean search and hydrocarbon seep
exploration. Most recently, these technologies were utilized by Fugro's
United States staff to map approximately 900,000 km2 in the
Gulf of Mexico, making it the largest hydrographic survey ever
executed.
In addition to its contract with NOAA OCS, Fugro also holds multi-
year contracts with NOAA's National Geodetic Survey (NGS) and Office
for Coastal Management (OCM), as well as with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation (BOR), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
and the U.S. Navy.
Since 1997, Fugro has supported NOAA's OCS in the execution of
hydrographic surveys all over the United States and its territories,
including Maine, the Gulf of Mexico, the Marianas Islands, and Alaska.
Most recently, during the 2016 and 2017 survey seasons, Fugro was
contracted to provide hydrographic surveying services of approximately
200 km2 nautical miles in Penobscot Bay and Jericho Bay in
Maine. The area, characterized by a vibrant lobster fishery and high
vessel traffic, was identified by NOAA as a priority area for nautical
chart updates. Until these surveys, charts in the area were between 67
and 142 years old and lacking in detail due to technology limitations
at the time of the prior surveys. One difficult aspect of conducting
surveys in coastal Maine is the complexity of the coastline and the
large number of submerged rocks. In fact, over the two seasons, Fugro
verified in excess of 4,200 features, submitted 154 Dangers to
Navigation, and discovered one previously uncharted ship wreck.
The survey, over the highly complex coastline and shallow waters,
was also challenged by the peak of lobster season, due to the high
density of lobster trap rigging and the continual need for avoidance
maneuvering. In an effort to gain efficiency, reduce costs, and lower
personnel/property risk, Fugro developed a survey plan that involved
the integration of aircraft-based laser and camera technology with
vessel-based acoustic technology. Such an approach allowed the project
to be completed almost twice as fast as traditional vessel-only based
surveys, while avoiding conflict with the lobster fishery. To this end,
NOAA and Fugro proactively engaged the Maine Lobstermen's Association
in advance of the surveys, maintained constant communications during
the surveys, and hosted a Stakeholders Meeting in Belfast, Maine, in
September 2017.
Much of the experience required to execute such a complex set of
projects in Maine came from years of conducting equally challenging
surveys in Alaska. Fugro has been operating in Alaska--specifically
Arctic Alaska--since the mid-1980s, and over the past 20 years has
conducted on the order of 20 hydrographic surveys for NOAA in the
state. Nationwide, NOAA is responsible for maintaining over 1,000
charts and publications, covering 95,000 mi of shoreline and 3.4
million nautical mi2 of water. Over one-third of this area
is located in Alaska, and as a result, the state has always been high
on NOAA's list of charting backlog priorities. Over the 20 years that
Fugro has supported NOAA in Alaska, the company conducted surveys in
areas where data on the nautical charts were acquired by Captain James
Cook, and in others where no prior data existed; i.e., areas that had
never been surveyed before.
The backlog of hydrographic survey data and nautical charting
updates in Alaska has always been daunting, but an ice diminishing
Arctic is compounding the demand. The reduction in sea ice in the
Arctic Ocean means that the region is seeing continued increases in
vessel activity, making the need for current and accurate nautical
charts ever more urgent. These data, which can really be considered the
most basic form of infrastructure, are required to support an already
evident increase in shipping and cruise industry traffic, the
inevitable activities associated with energy and natural resource
exploration and development, as well as the naval and Coast Guard
vessels that will ultimately be responsible for patrolling and
protecting these waters. In fact, in recent years, Fugro has conducted
numerous surveys in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in support of oil and
gas exploration, as well as infrastructure development, including the
survey of a submarine cable route that connects several remote
communities along the north and west coast of Alaska. Data from this
survey were also provided to NOAA by the owner, as an outside source
data contribution.
Despite NOAA's annual efforts to decrease the growing hydrographic
data and nautical charting backlog, the need in Alaska is daunting and
it will take decades to address. Two recent incidents demonstrate the
stakes in this region. First, in July 2015, the MV Fennica struck an
uncharted rock in Unalaska's harbor. The incident was unfortunate on
many levels, but first and most importantly because the MV Fennica was
a required support vessel for Shell's drilling activities in the
Chukchi Sea. The resulting damage necessitated repairs in the Lower 48,
which delayed Shell's operations by more than a month. Second, on June
24, 2016, the chemical tanker MV Champion Ebony ran aground on an
uncharted shoal near Nunivak Island in southwest Alaska. She was
carrying more than 14.2 million gallons of fuel products, and
fortunately was able to refloat without a spill. Both of these near-
misses demonstrate the value of current and accurate charts that are
created using modern survey technologies and methods.
Beyond the Arctic, many other areas also face significant data gaps
and charting backlogs. In fact, the United States has yet to map its
extended continental shelf using modern methods. This situation is
further complicated by the impact of major storms and hurricanes. Every
time a major storm or hurricane hits the United States, NOAA's
hydrographic survey and nautical charting backlog priorities are
overshadowed by post-hurricane mapping priorities. NOAA's limited
resources and budgets often need to be re-directed to address the
urgent needs that follow a major hurricane, such as those recently
experienced with Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Maria.
These events destroy coastal infrastructure, cause coastal erosion, and
change the accuracy of existing nautical charts. In many cases, natural
shoals and man-made debris appear in locations where they did not
previously exist. This obviously creates an extremely dangerous
situation and liability that needs prompt resolution. So, when these
events occur, NOAA needs to immediately re-prioritize and is not able
to progress the already delayed mapping of its hydrographic survey and
nautical charting backlog.
comments on h.r. 221
Turning to provisions included in H.R. 221, I would first like to
thank Congressman Young for his strong support of hydrographic survey
work in the United States. While NOAA, private sector hydrographic
survey companies, and the many stakeholders who rely on current and
accurate navigational charts, are important to this discussion, it has
been and continues to be Congress' role to determine levels of funding
and to identify key priorities.
As noted in the June 2017 GAO Study, ``Hydrographic Surveying--NOAA
Needs Better Cost Data and a Strategy for Expanding Private Sector
Involvement in Data Collection,'' NOAA has indicated that it is working
to expand its use of private sector resources, but is constrained due
to budget limitations and challenges with its own internal cost
accounting. Congress provided direction to the agency in its 2009
amendments to the Act to increase the use of contract surveyors, and
H.R. 221 will help to ensure that progress is made to achieve this
goal.
In these challenging budget times, I understand that choices must
be made and not all compelling national priorities can receive ideal
levels of funding. However, I am here to make the case that Congress
should consider increasing the authorizing levels to support
accelerated work to eliminate the hydrographic charting backlog.
Specifically, funding should include both higher levels for contract
survey work, as well as more robust funding to allow NOAA's assets to
continue to contribute to this mission. Section 2 of H.R. 221 does
increase the baseline levels for contract survey work, which is very
positive, and it is my recommendation that Congress do as much as
possible in this area given budget constraints.
It should be mentioned that the NOAA Charting Backlog program,
along with its industry partners and various R&D/innovation initiatives
at UNH CCOM/JHC, have combined to be the leading technologies creators,
developing multibeam echo sounder (MBES) technology and related
applications and improvements that have ultimately been adopted and
applied, and which have extensively benefited industry end users. Since
the early 2000s a small sampling list of such applications includes
TrueHeaveTM, MBES Snippets, and Geocoder. This small
sampling of applications, integrated into various seabed mapping
industries in the United States alone, directly benefits more than $200
million of mapping services annually. So, the value of NOAA's
hydrographic survey and charting backlog program extends beyond direct
contracts for civil hydrography, but includes the application of the
associated and jointly developed technologies and methodologies to
private sector mapping applications at a value many times greater.
Section 2(b) of the Act addresses funding for Arctic charting
activities. Earlier I referenced two incidents in U.S. Arctic waters
that underscore the critical need for up-to-date navigation charts--
near misses involving the M/V Fennica and the M/V Ebony Champion. In
both cases vessels struck uncharted, or inaccurately surveyed,
submerged features. With more and larger vessels expected to operate in
the Arctic Ocean in the future, the risks are significant in this
region, and I cannot emphasize strongly enough how important it is to
continue to aggressively attack existing charting deficiencies to avoid
a maritime casualty with potentially catastrophic environmental
consequences. I believe it is safe to say that funds invested now to
reduce these risks through better navigational charts will be far less
than the cost of addressing a maritime casualty in the U.S. Arctic.
conclusion
Once again I would like to thank the Committee for allowing me to
provide this statement for the record and to give testimony on this
matter. Improving the Nation's hydrographic charting capabilities and
ensuring the safe navigation is a critical mission and Congress'
attention to this issue will help advance the goal of eliminating risks
to maritime activities. H.R. 221 supports the continuation of the
partnership between NOAA and companies such as Fugro to reduce the cost
of hydrographic charting and maximize the ability to survey priority
areas and eliminate the charting backlog. I would be happy to answer
any questions from the Committee on H.R. 221.
______
Mr. Lamborn. All right, thank you. Thank you all for being
here and for your testimony.
At this point, we will begin our questions for witnesses.
To allow all of our Members to participate, and to ensure we
can hear from all of our witnesses today, under Committee Rule
3(d), Members are limited to 5 minutes for their questions. I
will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Governor LePage, thank you for being here. On this
Subcommittee, we are great supporters of our fishing
communities and working waterfronts. Coming from a state like
Maine, I am sure you would also support preservation of working
waterfronts, and I am sure that is an accurate statement, yes?
Governor LePage. Yes, that is very much an accurate
statement.
Mr. Lamborn. Unfortunately, we have seen time and again
that complex layers of Federal bureaucracy can result in
government agencies undermining states, especially when it
comes to resource management. I believe you had mentioned that
Maine has a state-run initiative to preserve working
waterfronts. Could you elaborate on that, and tell us what kind
of support that has within the state of Maine?
Governor LePage. Yes. Right now--in fact, in 2018--we have
between $2.5 and $3 million that is going to be dedicated for
the management of preservation of coastal waterfront.
The big issue in Maine--and I really urge you to give this
some serious thought, because we are now doing a massive survey
of our state. And what is happening with a lot of Federal
programs that make money available for preservation and
conservation, land is purchased and put into non-profits. We
have 476 communities that are struggling to operate their
community because of rising taxes. We have the ninth highest
property taxes in the country. We have billions upon billions
of valued property, particularly on the coast of Maine, that is
non-taxable.
I urge you, whatever you do, if you provide money for
funding--and, first of all, if you do anything, please provide
the funding. Number two, I would ask you to put in the law that
the land has to stay on the tax rolls. And three, I would
strongly urge you to limit the number of agencies involved.
If you have NOAA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and the state of
Maine, you have a tripod. And I am going to tell you it is very
difficult, because one arm of the Federal Government does not
necessarily discuss things with the second arm of the Federal
Government, and then you come into state regulations, and they
conflict among all of them. And it takes time and again.
And I will go back to what I said earlier about the Saco
River. The levee was put in in the 1860s, under Abraham
Lincoln. We have lost, I don't know, a couple of dozen homes,
several streets. The city is going out to the ocean, and nobody
is addressing it. And we still are awaiting the Army Corps to
give us reports on and funding to remedy the problem. So, I
just urge you very, very strongly to be cautious.
Mr. Lamborn. All right, thank you for that. I know that
many Federal programs are well intended, but there are
unforeseen and unintended consequences.
Mr. Millar, I would like to ask you a question. You made
reference to two ship collisions or strikes off of Alaska. Were
both of these due to outdated or inaccurate navigational
charts?
Mr. Millar. Yes, in both those instances, a vessel struck
features that were not charted, or represented on the charts,
which is a function of the vintage of the prior data, or the
collection of the prior data.
Mr. Lamborn. And would this have been avoided if NOAA had
been able to fully address their hydrographic data backlog?
Mr. Millar. Yes, I would say so. The purpose of addressing
the backlog is to try to use modern methods and technologies to
update these charts, and doing so would have most certainly
detected those hazards and obstructions.
Mr. Lamborn. Would the passage of this bill, H.R. 221, help
address that problem?
Mr. Millar. Yes. Very much so, I think. As I mentioned in
my testimony, this program is very important. The NOAA private
sector relationship is important. And increasing collectively
funding for this mission is important.
Mr. Lamborn. And besides safety, which we have already
discussed--and thank goodness that vessel carrying fuel, what,
14 million gallons of fuel products, was not breached, and
there was no spill--what other activities and industries are
supported, besides just safety itself?
Mr. Millar. Yes, these surveys and these technologies
actually can be used for other purposes beyond updating
nautical charts. One example would be fisheries, so mapping of
fisheries habitat for management and protection. It can also be
used for oil and gas exploration purposes, so these methods and
technologies are used to search for seabed seeps to help
identify gas and oil reserves.
Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you. At the request of the Ranking
Member, we are going to start with questions from
Representative Bordallo of Guam for 5 minutes. And I will be
giving the gavel to Representative Wittman of the great state
of Virginia.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Chairman Lamborn and, of
course, Ranking Member Huffman.
I have never had signage behind me in Congress, and I have
been here for almost 15 years. So, I know it is beautiful. I
have questions for Dr. Callender.
I want to thank you for your career of service, including
now as the Assistant Administrator of NOAA. I hope you are
aware of the great work that NOAA's staff are doing on Guam,
including the community coral reef monitoring program. However,
we can always use more agency resources and personnel to
fulfill NOAA's responsibilities to Guam and, of course now, the
very expansive Micronesian region.
My first question, Doctor, is I plan to reintroduce my bill
authorizing the Coral Reef Conservation Act. My staff worked
closely with NOAA on the reauthorization bill during the
previous Congress, and I would very much appreciate the
agency's continued assistance and expertise as I revamp my bill
for this Congress.
Can you please commit that NOAA will provide timely
feedback on the discussion draft, once ready, to address
technical aspects of the bill? I just need a yes or a no.
Dr. Callender. Yes.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. My next question, my bill will
provide additional congressional direction and dedicated
funding for NOAA's coral reef program, including an
authorization for the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. Doctor, can
you please speak to the National Ocean Service's work relating
to healthy coral reefs and the challenges facing those
ecosystems?
Dr. Callender. Yes, absolutely. Currently, I am the Acting
Co-Chair of the Coral Reef Task Force, so I have been engaged
for over a year, although I have been a lifelong fan of coral
reefs, if you will.
There are numerous threats facing coral reefs, including
warming seas, ocean acidification, sea-level rise, land-based
pollution impacting reefs, locally unsustainable fishing
practices, the list goes on. These reefs are under threat. We
do have a lot of interest looking at opportunities to restore
reefs, focusing on coral intervention strategies. We are
helping to support monitoring efforts.
And one of the key things is a partnership and dialogue
with local leaders and experts. This is not all coming from
Washington or my staff. We work very closely with all of the
jurisdictions in this country that have coral reefs. I work
with the All Islands Committee, for example, to ensure that we
understand and are addressing local challenges to reefs, as
well as larger global challenges.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. My last question, many, including
our Nation's marine laboratories, have concerns about continued
access to taxpayer-funded science under this Administration,
particularly the data sets that showed the consequences of
warming global oceans. Can you outline the National Ocean
Service's commitment to keeping agency science and data sets
fully available to the public and archival permanently online?
Dr. Callender. NOAA, across the board, is a science-based
service organization. And we are committed to making our
science and data fully available to the public, and archived
permanently. There are numerous ways to get to the data: NOAA
data catalog, the National Centers for Environmental
Information, digital coast, partnerships with industry on big
data; but the key is there are opportunities to get to those
data, and those data are archived, permanently.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much for answering the
questions, Doctor, and I appreciate the work you have done in
Guam, and I hope you can continue--Guam and the other
territories in the region.
Dr. Callender. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. I yield back.
Dr. Wittman [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo. We will
now go to Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. I want to thank the panel for their testimony.
White Mountain, is that where you had those great elk?
Mr. Velasquez. Yes, sir.
Mr. Young. OK. I am a great elk observer. I want you to
know that, keep that in mind.
Dr. Callender, the U.S. Arctic Exclusive Economic Zone is
550,000 square nautical miles. How much of the area has NOAA
surveyed in the past 2 years?
Dr. Callender. In the last 4 years, we have surveyed an
average of about 500 square nautical miles in the Arctic
Region.
Mr. Young. Five hundred and fifty thousand. And how did you
decide on the EE Zone that half is navigational significant and
the other designated--only 38,000 square nautical miles has
surveyed priority areas--how did you reach that conclusion,
when the rest of it is not considered? I mean what information
did you have?
Dr. Callender. Certainly, for working in the Arctic area we
have developed a U.S. Arctic charting plan. And this plan was
informed by an Anchorage charting workshop, Federal Register
notice, opportunities for public comments, meeting with
Federal, state, local, and government stakeholders, and that is
what is informing our plans for developing approximately 11 new
charts planned in the Arctic in the next 10 to 15 years.
Mr. Young. All right. And because this is very important,
with the transportation increasing up there in the oceans, I
want to know how you figured out where you are going to map.
And are you dealing with the AMO and the rest of them, the
shipping companies or anything that they want mapped?
Dr. Callender. Yes, absolutely. What we do is we do engage
with shipping companies. We engage in conversations with port
authorities, we engage in conversations at the state level to
understand the needs.
Mr. Young. OK. I am going to ask you another question, are
the NOAA ships doing this work, and how much has been done by
NOAA and how much has been done by private contractors?
Dr. Callender. In the last fiscal year, roughly 40 percent
of our charting activities were done by the contract fleet.
Mr. Young. Curiosity. What is the difference between using
a NOAA ship and private, as far as costs go?
Dr. Callender. You would think that would be a very simple
answer, and I have struggled with this one myself--that was the
whole point of the GAO study. We have received this report from
GAO, and one of the challenges that they identified that we are
currently working to better understand is how do we depreciate
the capital assets that we have in the Federal fleet, how do we
look at service life extensions, how do we look at
recapitalization costs.
It is sort of an apples-and-oranges comparison to the
contract fleet. We are working very diligently to address that
study, and working to better look at the methodology identified
by GAO and compare that to our own methods.
So, I don't have a great answer for what those costs are,
except we are trying very diligently to sort that out.
Mr. Young. The chances of you getting more ships is another
question, because I do believe this has to be mapped. I am
encouraging you to look at, and if we can get the money to you,
to contract as much as you can, as long as they do a
significant job.
That is something very important. I don't think we can keep
delaying this, because we are going to have countries, China,
primarily, Russia, a lot of ships that if we don't have
properly mapped could potentially be very dangerous to the
state of Alaska, and that is really what I am concerned about.
The report, by the way, was that an updated report, or is
that a different report?
Dr. Callender. This came out in the summer, I think it was
June of this year.
Mr. Young. Is it current? I had a little bird in my ear
tell me that it really does not apply. I don't know what they
meant by that.
Dr. Callender. I am not sure what they meant by that,
either. The GAO report does look at and charge NOAA with
looking at the costs of the Federal fleet versus the contract
fleet.
Mr. Young. Again, Governor, thank you for your comments.
You know, I am willing to work--I am like you, I don't really
like the Federal Government coming in and interfering with the
state. I have seen that happen. We are one of the few states--I
don't believe we have a Coastal Management Zone agreement for
that one reason. It starts getting double-layered, and it is
not good. So, thank you for being here.
Thank all of you. I yield back.
Governor LePage. My pleasure.
Dr. Wittman. I thank Mr. Young. We will now go to Mr.
Huffman.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor LePage, welcome back. I think we may disagree on
the merits of Ms. Pingree's bill, and certainly I think we
disagree on whether private property owners who want to donate
land to help create national monuments should be allowed to do
so. But I am always looking for common ground, and I think I
have found one thing that you and I can agree on.
In May of this year, you wrote a letter to Commerce
Secretary Ross, urging him to redistribute any permits
forfeited by disgraced pirate fishing tycoon Carlos Rafael. And
rather than allow those permits to be held or purchased by
Rafael's family or associates, you said they should be
distributed broadly. And I agree with you on that.
Since that time, Mr. Rafael has been sentenced to 46 months
in prison for violations of the Lacey Act. But the fate of his
vessels, permits, and quota remains unclear. And also, NOAA has
still not exercised its authority under the Magnuson Act to
seize vessels, sanction permits, or impose civil penalties.
So, like New England, I have a district that includes a
ground fish fishery that has struggled in the past. And I know
that if this situation occurred in our fishery, my constituents
and I would be just as outraged as you and a lot of Mainers are
by this Codfather situation.
It seems to me that Mr. Rafael's criminal empire has
contributed to the decline of working waterfronts throughout
the region, so I want to ask you a few questions.
First, do you think that fishermen and fishing communities
across New England have been harmed by these crimes?
Governor LePage. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Huffman. Do you believe that Mr. Rafael's assets should
be sold to one company, as has been reported in the media, or
broken up to prevent his crimes repeating because another too-
big-to-fail fishing conglomerate acquired these assets?
Governor LePage. I absolutely believe it should be broken
up.
Mr. Huffman. And do you think that excessive consolidation
and vertical integration of Mr. Rafael's fishing business
contributed to his ability to get away with these crimes for so
long?
Governor LePage. No, I just think it was a lack of
character.
Mr. Huffman. OK. Well, we have a lot of agreement on this,
Governor, so I appreciate your answers to these questions.
Mr. Snyder, I wanted to ask you a little more about the
history and culture that are tied to the coast and to the
industries that started many of our coastal cities. Can you
explain to us, when we talk about these working waterfronts,
the cultural and historic importance of preserving these
resources, and how that provides social benefits beyond just
economic development?
And, I am sorry, Dr. Snyder.
Dr. Snyder. One of the things that drove the creation of
the programming in Maine was really a look at the equity issues
around how forestry and farming were treated relative to
fishing.
All three are on our flag, and all three were not treated
equally in the state, in terms of how we would work to make
sure that working people could continue to have access to
land--frankly, land that is increasingly valuable and, as
Representative Pingree noted, where taxation and other,
basically, the fact that commercial tax--I will just say this
really quickly. If they were being taxed at their highest and
best use, they were no longer able to afford to keep their
property, which is the way the state laws had been written.
So, we needed to come up with a way to categorize working
waterfronts, where they could be taxed at their commercial
value, rather than at their highest and best use. And that
fundamental shift in the way the legislation was written was
really important in the state of Maine. It allows those
properties to continue to be taxed, and for the state and the
communities to benefit from that commercial activity, but it
does so in a way that is more aligned with the intended use of
the property.
And frankly, when you talk about the cultural value, not
only is it on our flag, it is absolutely an important way that
New England identifies itself. I mean we tell stories to
ourselves all the time in the news, and the fact that there is
somebody who could be identified as the Codfather, in fact,
ties directly to this image we have of ourself as a region, as
a place of fishing, a place of frontiers, a place where rural
people go out to sea to make their livelihood.
And I feel like that drives a lot of the discussions about
who we are and who we are becoming, right? Every time a
community like yours or ours thinks about making a change on
the waterfront, they are really struggling between the kind of
sense of continuity that is so important to every one of these
communities tied to the natural resource base, whether it is
groundfishing, lobstering, aquaculture, some future uses that
we cannot see yet, and kind of who we want to be and what we
want to have available to our families so we can enjoy our
lives in these places.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Doctor. I yield the balance.
Dr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Huffman. And we will now go to
Mr. Gosar.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the Chairman.
I want to thank you, Vice Chairman Velasquez, for making
the long trip from Arizona and for your testimony. And please
forward on to Chairman Lupe our best regards.
The White Mountain Apache Tribe's water rights settlement
of 2010 was good for the tribe, Arizona, and the United States.
It is clear in your testimony that the rural water system is
important to the tribe. But there are other stakeholders, as
well, that have benefits, like SRP in the city of Phoenix,
right?
Mr. Velasquez. Yes, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Now, as you stated, Senate Bill 140 makes a
technical correction to an existing water right settlement to
clarify the congressional intent of the settlement. I want to
thank the Chairman and the Vice Chairman for bringing up this
important legislation to help provide certainty to the tribe
and to my state.
I would also like to enter into the record two letters, one
from SRP and one from the Arizona Department of Water Resources
for the record in support.
Governor LePage, I first want to thank you for coming down
to DC, and giving a true state perspective. It is something
that is badly needed around this place.
Second, also, in contradiction to the Ranking Member, I
want to apologize that you experienced some of the anguish that
many of my constituents have felt. Of course, I am referring to
the Obama administration's behind-closed-door tactics that
resulted in the designation of the national monument in
northern Maine, a monument that was designated against the
wishes of yourself and many of your constituents.
H.R. 1176 could result in your Maine constituents once
again feeling the pain like Western Americans. As you have seen
firsthand in western water policy, when you have the Department
of the Interior and the Department of Commerce overlap, it
generally results in agencies going in completely different
directions. Just ask our California colleagues. I think we are
more likely to see a unicorn walk through the hearing room
doors right now than we are to see these two agencies to be on
the same page.
Fortunately, the Trump administration has put a lot of
focus on streamlining the Federal actions and eliminating
duplications. Do you think this bill supports the
Administration's policies? Or does this bill take us backwards?
Governor LePage. I believe it takes us backwards from the
standpoint of too many Federal agencies involved and the right
hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. Like state
government, the Federal Government is in silos. And,
unfortunately, not all the agencies work together, or have the
same agenda on what they are trying to accomplish, based on the
laws that are passed by Congress.
So, if this moves forward, I urge you to have it under one,
and I would prefer to see it under Commerce, because we are
talking about working waterfronts. I think it is very
important.
I would also say this. According to the recent EDA report,
there are currently 80 Federal funding mechanisms for working
waterfront properties in this country.
Dr. Gosar. Well, I am glad you brought that up, because
that is exactly where I am going to.
What we did is we pulled this up off of the website for Mr.
Snyder. There are two types of available grants. There are the
coastal communities grants and shore and harbor management
grants.
Shore and harbor planning grants will be awarded to
projects that promote sound waterfront planning and harbor
management, balanced development of shore and harbor areas,
advanced planning for waterfront infrastructure improvements,
and access to shore. And finally, created in 1978, the Maine
Coastal Program is a Federal, state, local partnership under
the Coastal Zone Management Act.
It seems to me that the Maine coastal programs that are
highlighted here achieve many of the goals proposed under this
legislation. Would you agree?
Governor LePage. Yes, absolutely.
Dr. Gosar. I think the Administration would agree with you,
as well, according to their testimony: ``Under the Coastal Zone
Management Act, coastal states have discretion to use funding
to address the needs of working waterfronts.'' This admission,
coupled with the successful state programs like Maine's would
indicate that this bill unnecessarily heaps Federal bureaucracy
on to states.
I stand ready to work with the states in a transparent
fashion to allow them to better and more freely manage their
resources. But I do not think a top-down management approach is
quite the answer. The Federal Government does not know all.
And, with that, I will yield back.
Oh, I have one more letter to enter into the record from
the city of Phoenix for Senate Bill 140.
Dr. Wittman. Very good. With no objection, so ordered on
entering the letters that you presented into the record.
Thank you, Mr. Gosar.
Now, we will go to Mr. Beyer.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you
for being with us this morning.
I want to just quickly respond and add an addendum to my
friend Mr. Gosar from Arizona's comments on the Maine monument,
and just point out that the Katahdin Woods and Waters was
privately purchased in a free-market economy with money earned
from a private enterprise, and it was given to the American
people in perpetuity, and that Obama's simple recognition was
an acceptance of this gift to the American people. And whether
it was a monument or not, it was given to us in perpetuity, and
was going to be land open to the American people.
Dr. Callender, recent studies show that in the Arctic
multi-year sea ice continues to disappear at a very rapid rate,
and may soon become entirely ice-free. We read about the
Northwest Passage year after year. These are drastic
environmental changes, and they can have similarly large
consequences for national security, research, navigation,
commerce, safety, hydrographic and mapping data needs.
With all these forthcoming challenges, can you elaborate on
current and future priorities, and the need for these
hydrographic surveys and mapping in the Arctic, stuff that we
largely have not been able to map or see before now?
Dr. Callender. I think you have stated the problem
incredibly well. With the waterways opening up, with ice-free
periods and seasons becoming longer and longer, we are going to
see more commerce in the Arctic. We are going to see more
activity in the Arctic. This is clearly an issue not only for
commerce, but for national security and for energy exploration.
How do we keep these ships and the people on them safe? How
do we ensure that there is little risk of spills of oil or
other toxic contaminants? We need these charts. Clearly, the
progress that we are making is slow, but we are doing
everything we can with the resources that we have to do that
work. The fact that we have a strong partnership with the
private sector on the contracting side, I think, is going to
accelerate the opportunities and the ability to chart that
region. But we need to keep moving as fast as we can to
continue that work.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much.
Mr. Snyder, I am really interested in hearing more about
your many years with working waterfronts, and specifically
examples from Maine or other places. Can you elaborate on the
importance of working waterfronts to diversifying coastal
economies and strengthening communities?
Dr. Snyder. Sure, thank you for the question. I think
people tend to think about the edge of the land as kind of the
end of the earth in some ways, where you don't end up thinking
about it as the beginning of this entire access to an economy,
where people are bringing their fish ashore, but that is not
where it ends. It ends when, as we heard earlier, there are
restaurants that take advantage of the landed product, there
are different ways that people have found to add value to
products.
I was actually visiting with somebody the other day in
Maine, Oceans Organic, who takes the seaweed and they do
chemically refined fertilizers that they sell to the NFL to
produce better fields. And, there are these ways that products
that people are harvesting off the coast of Maine are actually
showing up in the world in really surprising, value-added ways
that nobody could have imagined, years ago.
So, this idea that if you put the effort into making sure
that people will always be able to cross that divide between
land and sea, will always be able to bring those products
ashore, whether it is kelp for future energy needs, or whether
it is shellfish that is going to restaurants, or whether it is
some other biotech product that is going to be developed as a
result of the seafood that is gathered off our coast, or the
fish that are gathered off our coast, we are going to find ways
to continually evolve our economy, as a result of having done
the work we need to to ensure that access point.
One of the challenges to all of this is that those access
points are often shared. They are not individually owned. It is
not one business. It is ultimately many businesses that rely on
both the water side and on the land side.
So, if we want to look at the processing facilities, or the
trucking companies, or the different ways that these businesses
show up in our communities because their kids participate in
our schools, they spend their money in our stores, all of the
ways that fishermen and the broader network of that economy
participates has a great deal to do with the fact that a place
like Rockland is not just about fishing any more, it is about
art, it is about recreation. It is about all those things
because people are attracted there because it has a vibrant
working waterfront.
And that vibrant working waterfront bleeds out into an
incredibly interesting and diverse economy that supports a
range of livelihoods, some of which are still tied to the sea,
and many of which are not.
Mr. Beyer. That is a wonderful answer. Thank you very much.
I just read a study last week on happiness. They said that
people who live by water are much happier than people that do
not.
Dr. Snyder. Well, I think you are right.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Dr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. We will now go to Mr.
Hice.
Dr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think you are
right, as well. We live on water, and it just cannot get any
better than that.
Let me just get straight to--I have one primary question,
and then, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to you if I
have some time left over.
Governor, let me ask you this. As you know, Georgia has
been part of the Coastal Zone Management Program since 1998.
And this was originally designed to be a state-driven voluntary
program to provide states assistance in managing their own
coastal areas without a lot of government interference, or at
least less.
And I am sure you and I both agree that working waterfronts
are very important. But do you think this system that we are
discussing today is in the best interest of our Nation's
coastal resources?
Governor LePage. No, and I will tell you why for two
reasons.
Number one, most Federal programs are good-intentioned, and
this particular program is just an add-on to the 80 Federal
financing programs that are available to working waterfronts.
The issue is this, as a governor, when you have multiple
Federal agencies involved in managing or oversight over a
state, as I said earlier, the right hand does not know what the
left hand is doing, and so there is conflict in regulations
between the Federal agencies and there is conflict between the
states. And then time elapses before anything can get done.
Earlier, we were talking about working waterfronts. I would
also say that working forests for Maine are very, very
important. And you know, people seem to suggest that I am
against the national monument, but I would say this. If you
look at the reality of life, and reality of what is happening
in our state, in 1947 Acadia National Park burnt flat. Seventy-
five percent of major forest fires in this Nation occur on
Federal lands.
The monument we talk about in Maine backs to the state
park, which is a jewel of the state that we received from a
governor back in 1937. That is my objection with the government
owning right next to us, because their backlog right now on
managing properties is $11.3 billion--I will repeat, $11.3
billion in maintaining and managing the public lands
efficiently and effectively.
If they partner with the state, and the state has a major
role to play, then I think governing at the local level is much
better than governing from Washington.
Dr. Hice. Thank you for that answer.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield the remainder of my time to you.
Dr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Hice. And I want to thank all
of our witnesses for joining us today.
Governor, I appreciate your frustration with different
levels of Federal Government. In fact, I experienced some of
the same. But I do want to thank Representative Pingree for
putting forth this bill. I do think that there are
opportunities here for us to cut through some of that, and make
sure that there is some ability for us to work together with
the various Federal agencies, maybe even focus down to a single
one, and to get some of these things done.
I just held a town hall in a working waterfronts area in my
district last week, and had over 300 people show up. They were
livid because we had the Coast Guard come in to a channel there
that is used by our watermen, and they started taking out aids
to navigation because there was an area there that was not
dredged to their satisfaction. So, rather than talking to
folks, they came in.
We were able to stop it midstream. I think there are some
things that we can do, working with the locality, to put some
private aids to navigation in. But again, that is another
situation where the Corps of Engineers in charge of the
dredging, the U.S. Coast Guard, the county, the state, the
Marine Resources Patrol, all those folks have to be talking to
each other instead of going in and saying, ``Well, in our
little silo we have a responsibility for safety of
navigation,'' and we are going to make that judgment, instead
of saying, ``Well, if you did this little bit here, you could
actually take out this part of the channel, and actually open
this up so we didn't have to spend all this money to take it
out.'' So, listen, I fully understand that.
There is also another part of this realm that all of us, I
believe, have to work on. My son is a commercial fisherman. He
is in my ear every day about the things that he has to deal
with. He crabs, he oysters, he gillnets, he pound nets, he does
it all because he cannot make a living in any one particular
area. And he gets frustrated.
He lives in a particular area, stored his crab pots there
and other things, and was told by the county he could not store
them there, so now he has relegated to say, ``Well, where do I
go?'' He has to go to the water in order to be able to do that,
and then he is saying, ``Dad, look at what I have to go through
in order to purchase that piece of property.'' So, highest and
best use there, and making sure, too, that there is a balance
in our waterfront communities.
Listen, I am all for folks having a home on the water. We
heard everybody here about that nice frame of mind that comes
with living there. But I would argue, too--and I think you
would agree with me--that the value of our waterfront
communities is not just in the residential side, but it is also
in the connection to the commercial fishing side that makes
those communities desirable for people to move to. So, I think
our effort there is to try to find ways for us to be able to
accomplish that.
With that, I want to make sure that we all understand the
things that we can do together. And, Mr. Callender, I
appreciate your perspective there on what we can do at the
Federal level, and look forward to working with everybody
through this.
I will now yield to Ms. Pingree for her questions.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for being
a participant in this. I think all kinds of wonderful questions
have already been asked. And I too want to thank the panelists.
Governor, you and I don't agree on every single part of
this, but I think it is a real testimony to your belief in the
importance of working waterfronts that you took a day out of
your busy week in a challenging week in the state of Maine to
be here with all of us.
And a thank-you to Dr. Snyder for the work the Island
Institute has been doing, and Dr. Callender for giving us a
little perspective.
There are a lot of things that have been brought up here
that I think are really an important part of the discussion.
You submit a bill and you work on it to the best of your
ability, and then you hope the Committee will, in its wisdom,
figure out what is a good balance.
I think many of the things that have been brought up today
are completely reasonable, particularly around making sure
there is literally just one agency. I think that is a very good
point, and I appreciate you bringing it up.
This is not in the bill, but I also wanted to say I really
appreciate when the Governor reminded all of us that it is nice
to have the language, but it is really good to have the
funding, because there is nothing worse in a state than an
unfunded mandate. And as a former state legislator, I
sympathize with all the issues you have to deal with.
And while there may be many more programs--I have never
seen the list of 80, but I appreciate that perspective. I have
never seen them all, but 80 funding streams, I think if there
were, we would try to take advantage of them and certainly look
at that.
So, I guess my question to all of you would really be, in
terms of coastal zone management, sea grant--Dr. Callender, you
probably have some experience with this, and Rob Snyder, but
also, if you want to weigh in, Governor, certainly do--but just
in focusing this down, the idea of better planning, a little
more coordination. Frankly, I think Maine is a real testimony
to how much has been done, the funding that has been available,
the working waterfront money that has been there. But I think
anybody who works on the waterfront would say, ``Boy, we would
like to have more resources because, as land gets more valuable
and more gets taken off the tax rolls, this is increasingly
important.''
In your perspectives, and maybe particularly Dr. Callender,
since you work with this, how can we best use coastal zone
management, the sea grant programs, and see this as an
enhancement, as you kind of recommended?
Dr. Callender. Sure, I will take a stab at that. I think
part of the value of both the Coastal Zone Management Act and
its program is the establishment of broad coastal management
policies. But then, we work with the states. It is a Federal-
state partnership, and partnership is the key word here. Work
with the states to help them tailor programs to meet their
needs, to meet local needs.
One of the things that we can provide on the Federal side
is data, tools, technical assistance, and support, funding when
we have the appropriations to do so. But the key here really is
talking to folks on the ground.
A hallmark of the sea grant program is research, it is
advisory services, it is education. The advisory services are
basically boots on the ground that can work with local
communities, understand their needs, and help them meet those
needs. I think there is room, as the Chairman mentioned, for
compromise, and that dialogue back and forth. And I think that
is the hallmark of both of these kinds of programs, and it is
certainly the intent.
Dr. Snyder. I think one of the remarkable learnings that I
had in the early years of trying to design this programming was
how important it was to have state agency representatives,
private industry representatives, and the non-profit sector
working together to solve this problem at the state level.
We were designing a state program very much with everyone
at the table. And I feel like one of the interesting
opportunities with a very targeted source of funding like this
is to design it in a way that it actually catalyzes a very
specific kind of discussion about how to create--it is actually
quite a bit of work to get one of these wharfs preserved,
right? It took a lot of work from sea grants, law offices, and
advisors from all over the country to help us figure out how to
make it so that you could actually accomplish with a working
waterfront what you could with forestry and farming. And I
just----
Ms. Pingree. Could I just give the Governor the last 30
seconds? You can have the last word, because I am quite sure
Dr. Snyder and I will keep working on this.
Dr. Snyder. Yes.
Governor LePage. I would just like to leave you with this
thought. Back when the Federal Government closed a few years
ago--we have Federal lands in Maine, and within the Federal
lands is a state park which has a commercial fishing dock. And
we have an agreement with the Federal Government to manage
those Federal lands plus the park. But when the Obama
administration shut down, they closed the park and closed the
dock. I thought that was really bad. And what I did was I
reopened it, at the dismay of the President, and sent the
fishermen working.
Be cautious of some of the things you do. If there is going
to be a partnership--and I do agree with everything about
partnership--very, very, very important. But the partnerships
have to go both ways.
Ms. Pingree. And we remember that time when the fishing
dock had to be reopened, and I know the fishermen were very
happy for that. I remember the Republicans shutting down the
government, not the President. But those are just one of those
things we see differently.
Governor LePage. Well, he shut down the park, because he
notified me that people could not go in, and the buck stops at
the big guy.
Ms. Pingree. It is true, it was his responsibility. Again,
thank you for being here. Thank you for giving me a chance to
engage in the conversation.
Dr. Wittman. Absolutely, Ms. Pingree, thank you.
I want to thank all of our witnesses: Governor LePage, Mr.
Velasquez, Dr. Callender, Dr. Snyder, and Mr. Millar. Thank you
all so much for spending your time here today. I think this was
a really constructive conversation to find out what we can do
to help these communities. I think we all have the same end in
mind, and that is to make sure we get where we need to be, and
do that in ways that respect and honor the sovereignty of local
and state governments, and make sure we don't make things too
complicated at the Federal level. I really appreciate that.
Again, I would like to thank you today for your valuable
testimony. Members of the Subcommittee may have additional
questions for the witnesses, and we would ask that you respond
to those in writing if you receive those questions.
Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must
submit questions to the Clerk within 3 business days following
the hearing, and the hearing record will be held open for 10
business days for these responses.
If there is no further business to come before the
Committee, without objection the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
Rep. Gosar Submissions
-- Letter addressed to Chairman Lamborn and Ranking Member
Huffman from Thomas Buschatzke, Director of the
Arizona Department of Water Resources in support of
S. 140. Dated October 30, 2017.
-- Letter addressed to Chairman Lamborn and Ranking Member
Huffman from David C. Roberts of the Salt River
Project in support of S. 140. Dated October 30,
2017.
Rep. Grijalva Submissions
-- Press Release on H.R. 1176 from the Marine Fish
Conservation Network (www.conservefish.org) titled,
``Network Applauds Congress' Support for America's
Working Waterfronts.'' Dated November 2, 2017.
-- Letter addressed to Chairman Lamborn and Ranking Member
Huffman from Robert B. Rheault, Executive Director
of the East Coast Shellfish Growers Association in
support of H.R. 1176. Dated October 31, 2017.
-- Letter addressed to Chairman Lamborn from the owners of
Millers' Wharf in support of H.R. 1176. Dated
November 2, 2017.
-- Letter from Nicole Faghin and Jack Wiggin, Co-Chairs of
the National Working Waterfronts Network in support
of H.R. 1176. Dated November 1, 2017.
-- Letter addressed to Chairman Lamborn from Jon P.
Jennings, City Manager, Executive Department of
Portland, Maine in support of H.R. 1176. Dated
November 1, 2017.
[all]