[House Report 109-292]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
109th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 109-292
======================================================================
COASTAL RECREATION WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND NOTIFICATION
_______
November 14, 2005.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 1721]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 1721) to amend the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to reauthorize programs to improve the
quality of coastal recreation waters, and for other purposes,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon without
amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
Purpose of the Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 1721 is to amend the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (the Clean Water Act) to reauthorize
appropriations for the coastal recreation water quality program
within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Background and Need for Legislation
Beaches are an important part of American life. Each year
over 180 million people visit our nation's coastal waters for
recreational purposes. This activity supports over 28 million
jobs and leads to investments of over $50 billion in goods and
services. It is important to give the public confidence in the
quality of our nation's coastal waters. This confidence is
important not only to each person who swims, but also to the
tourism and recreation industries that rely on safe and
swimmable coastal waters.
In October 2000, Congress passed the Beaches Environmental
Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-284;
commonly called the BEACH Act) to improve the public's
confidence in the quality of our nation's coastal waters and
protect public health and safety. The BEACH Act amended the
Clean Water Act to require states to update their water quality
standards to incorporate criteria for protecting human health
from pathogens in coastal recreation waters, and to require EPA
to issue new or revised water quality criteria for pathogens
and pathogen indicators. The BEACH Act also added section 406
to the Clean Water Act, which authorized a grant program to
provide funding for states and local governments to develop and
implement programs for beach water quality monitoring and
notification to the public of exceedances of water quality
standards for pathogens in coastal recreation waters.
Under the BEACH Act, EPA has been developing new water
quality criteria to protect human health from pathogens, and
states are updating their water quality standards for
recreational coastal waters to incorporate these more
protective criteria. EPA also has been making grants to states
to help them implement programs to monitor beach water quality
and notify the public if water quality standards for pathogens
are not being met.
The BEACH Act authorized, for each of fiscal years 2001
through 2005, such sums as are necessary to carry out the Act's
program provisions and $30 million for EPA to make program
development and implementation grants under Clean Water Act
section 406.
Summary of the Legislation
Section 1. Coastal recreation water quality monitoring and notification
Section 1 of H.R. 1721 amends Section 406(i) of the Clean
Water Act to extend the authorization of appropriations of $30
million per year for program development and implementation
grants under section 406 through fiscal year 2011.
Section 2. Authorization of appropriations
Section 2 of H.R. 1721 amends Section 8 of the Beaches
Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000 to
extend the authorization of appropriations of such sums as are
necessary to implement the Act's program provisions through
fiscal year 2011.
Legislative History and Committee Consideration
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met in
open session on October 26, 2005, and ordered H.R. 1721
reported, without amendment, to the House by voice vote.
Rollcall Votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives
requires each committee report to include the total number of
votes cast for and against on each rollcall vote on a motion to
report and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter,
and the names of those members voting for and against. There
were no recorded votes taken in connection with ordering H.R.
1721 reported. A motion to order H.R. 1721 reported to the
House was agreed to by voice vote.
Committee Oversight Findings
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in this report.
Cost of Legislation
Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is
included in this report.
Compliance With House Rule XIII
1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Committee references the report of the Congressional Budget
Office included below.
2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
performance goals and objective of this legislation are to
restore and protect the nation's coastal recreation waters and
protect human health through the development and implementation
of new water quality criteria and standards and beach water
quality monitoring and notification programs.
3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R.
1721 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
November 9, 2005.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1721, a bill to
amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize
programs to improve the quality of coastal recreation waters,
and for other purposes.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Susanne S.
Mehlman (for federal costs), and Lisa Ramirez-Branum (for the
state and local impact).
Sincerely,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin.
Enclosure.
H.R. 1721--A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
reauthorize programs to improve the quality of coastal
recreation waters, and for other purposes
Summary: H.R. 1721 would authorize appropriations through
fiscal year 2011 for the water quality program that benefits
coastal states under the Clean Water Act. Under this program,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides grants to
state or local governments to support their efforts to monitor
the quality of coastal waters and notify the public of any
conditions where beach water does not meet established
standards. Under current law, EPA was authorized to receive
annual appropriations of $30 million for grants and such sums
as may be necessary to manage this water quality program
through 2005.
Assuming the appropriation of necessary funds, CBO
estimates that implementing this legislation would cost $10
million in 2006 and $121 million over the 2006-2010 period,
with additional spending occurring in later years. Enacting the
bill would not affect direct spending or revenues.
H.R. 1721 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Any costs to state or local governments would be the result of
complying with grant conditions.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 1721 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300
(natural resources and environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Spending Under Current Law:
Budget Authority \1\........................................... 11 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 12 6 3 1 0
Proposed Changes:
Estimated Authorization Level.................................. 20 31 31 31 31
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 10 23 27 30 31
Spending Under H.R. 1721:
Estimated Authorization Level \1\.............................. 31 31 31 31 31
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 22 29 30 31 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2006 level is the amount appropriated for that year for both grants and EPA program management.
Basis of estimate: The bill would authorize the
appropriation of $30 million annually over the 2006-2011 for
grants to states to implement beach water quality and public
notification programs. For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R.
1721 will be enacted before the end of calendar year 2005 and
that the necessary funds will be appropriated for each year. We
also assume that additional amounts up to the authorized level
will be appropriated for grants in 2006 and that, in subsequent
years, the appropriation will be provided at the full
authorized level of $30 million annually. Based on historical
spending patterns for those programs, CBO estimates that
providing the grants would cost $117 million over the 2006-2010
period.
H.R. 1721 also would authorize the appropriation of such
sums as may be necessary for EPA to establish new criteria for
monitoring water quality and to manage the program through
2011. Assuming appropriations for such administrative
activities would continue at the 2006 level (with annual
inflation adjustments), CBO estimates that implementing the
program would cost about $1 million a year over the 2007-2011
period. In total, CBO estimates that outlays resulting from the
appropriations for grants and administrative activities would
sum to $121 million over the 2006-2010 period, with additional
spending occurring in later years.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1721
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA. The bill would reauthorize water quality
programs that benefit coastal states. Much of the funding
authorized in the bill would be directed in the form of grants
to public or private entities such as qualified state and local
governments. Any costs to these governments from the
requirements of the program, including matching funds, would be
incurred voluntarily.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Susanne S. Mehlman.
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-
Branum. Impact on the Private Sector: Craig Cammarata.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or
joint resolution of a public character shall include a
statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in
the Constitution to enact the measure. The Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure finds that Congress has the
authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted
under article I, section 8 of the Constitution.
Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (Public Law 104-4).
Preemption Clarification
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local,
or tribal law. The Committee states that H.R. 1721 does not
preempt any state, local, or tribal law.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
Applicability to the Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law
104-1).
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
SECTION 406 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
SEC. 406. COASTAL RECREATION WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND NOTIFICATION.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated for making grants under subsection (b),
including implementation of monitoring and notification
programs by the Administrator under subsection (h), $30,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2001 through [2005] 2011.
----------
SECTION 8 OF THE BEACHES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND COASTAL HEALTH
ACT OF 2000
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the
provisions of this Act, including the amendments made by this
Act, for which amounts are not otherwise specifically
authorized to be appropriated, such sums as are necessary for
each of fiscal years 2001 through [2005] 2011.