Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
                                                                       
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) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *