[House Report 106-596]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-596
======================================================================
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
_______
May 2, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Shuster, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 1237]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 1237) to amend the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to permit grants for the national estuary
program to be used for the development and implementation of a
comprehensive conservation and management plan, to reauthorize
appropriations to carry out the program, and for other
purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do
pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SECTION 1. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.
(a) Additions to National Estuary Program.--Section 320(a)(2)(B) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330(a)(2)(B)) is
amended by inserting ``Lake Ponchartrain Basin, Louisiana and
Mississippi; Mississippi Sound, Mississippi;'' before ``and Peconic
Bay, New York.''.
(b) Grants.--Section 320(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1330(g)) is amended by striking paragraphs (2) and (3)
and inserting the following:
``(2) Purposes.--Grants under this subsection shall be made
to pay for activities necessary for the development and
implementation of a comprehensive conservation and management
plan under this section.
``(3) Federal share.--The Federal share of a grant to any
person (including a State, interstate, or regional agency or
entity) under this subsection for a fiscal year--
``(A) shall not exceed--
``(i) 75 percent of the annual aggregate
costs of the development of a comprehensive
conservation and management plan; and
``(ii) 50 percent of the annual aggregate
costs of the implementation of the plan; and
``(B) shall be made on condition that the non-Federal
share of the costs are provided from non-Federal
sources.''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 320(i) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330(i)) is amended by striking
``$12,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1987, 1988,
1989, 1990, and 1991'' and inserting ``$50,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2000 through 2004''.
Purpose and Summary
The purpose of H.R. 1237 is to reauthorize and improve the
National Estuary Program (NEP), contained in Section 320 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act). H.R.
1237 authorizes grants for the development and implementation
of comprehensive conservation and management plans,
reauthorizes appropriations for the NEP, and adds two
additional sites to the list of estuaries receiving priority
consideration under the NEP.
Background and Need for Legislation
Overview of estuaries and coastal areas
Estuaries are partially enclosed water bodies where
freshwater from land drainage through rivers or streams flows
into an open sea or the ocean. Estuaries are also called
inlets, bays, harbors, or sounds, and their habitats include
shallow open waters, fresh and saltwater marshes, beaches,
tidal pools, and wooded swamps, among others.
Estuaries and their surrounding coastal areas provide some
of the most diverse and ecologically and economically
productive habitat in the country. Many wildlife populations,
such as migratory birds, commercially valuable fish species,
shellfish and other species depend on estuarine environments.
Estuaries also support important commercial activities, provide
the primary water supply for many areas, and perform many other
essential ecologic and economic functions for the U.S. For
example, estuaries provide habitat for more than 75 percent of
America's commercial fish catch at some point during their life
cycle, and fisheries dependent on coastal waters were worth
more than $1.9 billion in 1990 (excluding Alaska). Coastal
industries, including fishing, boating and tourism, provide
more than 28 million jobs, and coastal recreation and tourism
generate approximately $8 to $12 billion annually. More than 70
percent of Americans visit the coast every year. In addition,
more than 110 million people currently live in coastal regions,
and this number is expected to reach 127 million by 2010.
Increasing population growth and development have imposed
significant stress on our estuaries. Competing and increasing
demands on estuaries have led to water quality problems arising
from increased non-point source pollution from stormwater and
agricultural runoff, wastewater discharges, industrial
pollution, and commercial and recreational waste. The nation's
estuaries face increasing eutrophication from over-enrichment
of nutrients, contamination from toxic substances and
pathogens, loss of habitat, declines in fish and wildlife
populations, and intrusion by non-native species. The 1996
National Water Quality Inventory reported that almost 40
percent of the surveyed estuaries are impaired (i.e. not fully
meeting one or more designated uses).
Current efforts to restore and maintain estuaries
In 1987, Congress established the NEP by adding Section 320
to the Clean Water Act. The goal of Section 320 is the
promotion of comprehensive conservation and management plans
(CCMPs) for estuaries of national significance through
collaborative voluntary efforts of federal, state, local, non-
profit and private interests. Stakeholders involved include
local governments, federal officials, private and non-profit
interests, industrial, recreational or other user groups, and
academic or scientific experts. The goal is for the
stakeholders, as equal partners, to develop and implement long-
term CCMPs, with technical assistance and grants provided by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Of the roughly 130 estuaries in the U.S., 28 have been
incorporated into the NEP. Of these 28, 21 have begun
implementation, and seven are still in the development stage.
An estimated $50 billion will be needed to implement all 28
CCMPs. Although authorization for the NEP expired in FY 1991,
Congress has continued to appropriate funds (approximately $225
million to date).
Currently, Section 320 does not authorize funding for CCMP
implementation. However, for the past three fiscal years, the
Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and
Independent Agencies (VA-HUD) appropriations bill has included
language allowing the Section 320 funding provided in that
fiscal year to be used for implementation. Additional Clean
Water Act funding is available for CCMP development and/or
implementation through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
loans, non-point source grants under Section 319, and state
water program grants under Section 104(b)(3).
Discussion of Committee Bill and Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. National Estuary Program
Subsection (a) amends Section 320(a)(2)(b) of the Clean
Water Act by adding the Lake Pontchartrain Basin, Louisiana,
and the Mississippi Sound, Mississippi to the list of estuaries
of national significance that Congress recommends for priority
consideration for the NEP.
Subsection (b) amends Section 320 (g) to permanently allow
grants made under this section to be used for development and
implementation of CCMPs. This subsection also establishes the
federal cost-share for grants not to exceed 75 percent of the
annual aggregate costs of CCMP development, and not to exceed
50 percent of the annual aggregate costs of CCMP
implementation. Finally, this subsection states that grants
shall be made on the condition that non-federal sources provide
the non-federal cost share.
Subsection (c) amends Section 320(i) to authorize
appropriations of $50 million for each of fiscal years 2000
through 2004.
Under the reported bill, construction of projects that are
treatment works as defined in the Clean Water Act will be
subject to the requirements of the Davis-BaconAct as provided
in Section 513 of the Clean Water Act. The Committee is aware that some
of the construction authorized by the reported bill may not come within
the definition of treatment works. The Committee has not addressed the
issue of whether these construction projects should be covered by the
Davis-Bacon Act, and the reported bill should not be considered as a
precedent on this issue.
Hearings
On July 13, 1999, the Water Resources and Environment
Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1237 and several other
coastal and estuary bills. Testimony was given by, among
others, Representative Saxton (NJ), Representative Shays (CT),
Representative Lowey (NY), Representative DeLauro (CT), and
Representative Lazio (NY). In addition, testimony was given by
Mr. Michael Davis of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ms. Dana
Minerva of the EPA, and Ms. Sally Yozell of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as
representatives of coastal states and several environmental
organizations.
Committee Consideration
On April 5, 2000 the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment adopted an amendment to the bill, and favorably
reported the amended bill by voice vote. The amendment amended
Section 320 of the Clean Water Act, and included Lake
Pontchartrain Basin and Mississippi Sound to the list of
estuaries of national significance that Congress recommends for
priority consideration for the NEP.
On April 11, 2000, the Committee approved H.R. 1237 as
amended by the Subcommittee, and ordered the bill reported 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.
1237 reported.
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
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
Committee has received no report of oversight findings and
recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight on the subject of H.R. 1237.
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.
1237 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, April 19, 2000.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
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. 1237, a bill to
amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to permit grants
for the national estuary program to be used for the development
and implementation of a comprehensive conservation and
management plan, to reauthorize appropriations to carry out the
program, 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 Victoria Heid Hall (for the
state and local impact).
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
congressional budget office cost estimate
H.R. 1237--A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
permit grants for the national estuary program to be used for
the development and implementation of a comprehensive
conservation and management plan, to reauthorize appropriations
to carry out the program, and for other purposes
Summary: H.R. 1237 would authorize the appropriation of $50
million annually over the 2000-2004 period for the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) National Estuary
Program (NEP). Under the bill, the agency would make additional
grants to states for the purpose of developing and implementing
long-term management plans for various estuaries that are not
currently covered under the NEP. CBO estimates that
implementing this legislation would increase discretionary
spending by $157 million over the 2000-2005 period.
This bill would not affect direct spending or receipts;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. H.R. 1237
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in the Unfunded mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would
impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: For purposes of
this estimate, CBO assumes that the amounts authorized will be
appropriated for each fiscal year and that outlays will follow
the pattern of past appropriations for EPA activities
associated with the NEP. The estimated impact of H.R. 1237 is
shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation
fall within budget function 300 (natural resources and the
environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
NEP Spending Under Current Law \1\:
Budget Authority...................................... 14 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays..................................... 14 7 3 1 0 0
Proposed Changes:
Authorization Level................................... 36 50 50 50 50 0
Estimated Outlays..................................... 2 8 21 36 45 45
NEP Spending Under H.R. 1237:
NEP Authorization Level............................... 50 50 50 50 50 0
Estimated Outlays..................................... 16 15 24 37 45 45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2000 level is the amount appropriated for that year for the National Estuary Program.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1237
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or
tribal governments. Implementing this bill would benefit state
and local governments by allowing jurisdictions to use federal
grants made under the National Estuary Program for implementing
conservation and management plans. Any costs to match federal
grant funds would be incurred voluntarily.
Previous CBO estimate: On October 13, 1999, CBO transmitted
a cost estimate for S. 835, the Estuary Habitat Restoration
Partnership Act of 1999, as ordered reported by the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works on September 29,
1999. In contrast to H.R. 1237, S. 835 would increase the
authorization of appropriations for the NEP by $25 million for
each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001. In addition, S. 835, unlike
H.R. 1237, would authorize additional appropriations for the
Corps of Engineers to establish an Estuary Habitat Restoration
Collaborative Council.
In addition, on March 27, 2000, CBO transmitted a cost
estimate for H.R. 1775, the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000, as
ordered reported by the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure on March 16, 2000. H.R. 1775 would authorize
appropriations for the Corps of Engineers to establish an
Estuary Habitat Restoration Council and for other agencies,
including EPA, to conduct various studies related to estuary
restoration. Differences between the two estimates are the
result of differences in the two bills.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Susanne S. Mehlman.
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Victoria Heid
Hall. Impact on the Private Sector: Jean Wooster.
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.)
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 320 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
SEC. 320. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.
(a) Management Conference.--
(1) * * *
(2) Convening of conference.--
(A) * * *
(B) Priority consideration.--The
Administrator shall give priority consideration
under this section to Long Island Sound, New
York and Connecticut; Narragansett Bay, Rhode
Island; Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts;
Massachusetts Bay, Massachusetts (including
Cape Cod Bay and Boston Harbor); Puget Sound,
Washington; New York-New Jersey Harbor, New
York and New Jersey; Delaware Bay, Delaware and
New Jersey; Delaware Inland Bays, Delaware;
Albermarle Sound, North Carolina; Sarasota Bay,
Florida; San Francisco Bay, California; Santa
Monica Bay, California; Galveston Bay, Texas;
Barataria-Terrebonne Bay estuary complex,
Louisiana; Indian River Lagoon, Florida; Lake
Pontchartrain Basin, Louisiana and Mississippi;
Mississippi Sound, Mississippi; and Peconic
Bay, New York.
* * * * * * *
(g) Grants.--
(1) Recipients.--The Administrator is authorized to
make grants to State, interstate, and regional water
pollution control agencies and entities, State coastal
zone management agencies, interstate agencies, other
public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions,
organizations, and individuals.
[(2) Purposes.--Grants under this subsection shall be
made to pay for assisting research, surveys, studies,
and modeling and other technical work necessary for the
development of a conservation and management plan under
this section.
[(3) Federal share.--The amount of grants to any
person (including a State, interstate, or regional
agency or entity) under this subsection for a fiscal
year shall not exceed 75 percent of the costs of such
research, survey, studies, and work and shall be made
on condition that the non-Federal share of such costs
are provided from non-Federal sources.]
(2) Purposes.--Grants under this subsection shall be
made to pay for activities necessary for the
development and implementation of a comprehensive
conservation and management plan under this section.
(3) Federal share.--The Federal share of a grant to
any person (including a State, interstate, or regional
agency or entity) under this subsection for a fiscal
year--
(A) shall not exceed--
(i) 75 percent of the annual
aggregate costs of the development of a
comprehensive conservation and
management plan; and
(ii) 50 percent of the annual
aggregate costs of the implementation
of the plan; and
(B) shall be made on condition that the non-
Federal share of the costs are provided from
non-Federal sources.
* * * * * * *
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Administrator not to exceed
[$12,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1987,
1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991] $50,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2000 through 2004 for--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *