[House Report 108-359]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
108th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 108-359
======================================================================
REPLACEMENT OF JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM MAP
_______
November 17, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Pombo, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 154]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 154) to exclude certain properties from the John H.
Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System, 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 all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES
SYSTEM MAP.
(a) In General.--The map described in subsection (b) is replaced by
the map entitled ``John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System
Matagorda Peninsula Unit T07/T07P'' and dated July 12, 2002.
(b) Description of Replaced Map.--The map referred to in subsection
(a) is the map relating to the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier System
unit designated as Coastal Barrier Resources System Matagorda Peninsula
Unit T07/T07P that is subtitled ``T07/T07P'' and included in the set of
maps entitled ``Coastal Barrier Resources System'' and referred to in
section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)).
(c) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall keep the
replacement map referred to in subsection (a) on file and available for
inspection in accordance with section 4(b) of the Coastal Barrier
Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)).
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 154 is to exclude certain properties
from the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Coastal barriers are natural landscape features that
protect the mainland, lagoons, wetlands and salt marshes from
the full force of wind, wave and tidal energy. Major types of
coastal barriers include fringing mangroves, tombolos, barrier
islands, barrier spits, and bay barriers. Composed of sand and
other loose sediments, these elongated, narrow land forms are
dynamic ecosystems and prone to frequent disruption by storms.
Coastal barrier systems provide habitat for a variety of
wildlife, and are an important recreational resource. Despite
their vulnerability to hurricane damage and shoreline
recession, these areas are attractive places to locate private
homes and resorts.
The Coastal Barrier Resources System was established by the
Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 (CBRA, Public Law 97-348)
and was expanded by the CBRA amendments adopted in the Coastal
Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-591). CBRA is
designed to eliminate or limit federal development incentives
on undeveloped coastal barriers to prevent the loss of human
life and property from storms, minimize federal expenditures
and protect habitat for fish and wildlife.
This System is unique because it protects coastal barriers
without restricting the use of private property. Inclusion of
property in the System does not prevent private development nor
does it prevent actions to process and issue federal permits
necessary for development. However, the CBRA does restrict the
availability of new federal financial assistance to develop
property within the System. Of particular importance, no new
federal flood insurance can be issued for properties located in
System units, but existing flood insurance policies for
property currently within the System remain in place. However,
if the property is damaged, it cannot be rebuilt with federal
flood insurance if the cost of rebuilding is more than 50
percent of the value of the property. Also, if an insured
property within the System is substantially expanded or
replaced with more development, flood insurance coverage is
lost. Other forms of federal assistance that are restricted for
property within the Coastal Barrier System include disaster
relief, community block grants, flood control, construction of
new federal highways, construction of new infrastructure and
beach stabilization or erosion projects.
CBRA System units are delineated on maps referenced in law
and maintained by the Department of the Interior's U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. These units encompass areas that were
undeveloped (defined as having low densities of structures per
acre and negligible infrastructure) when the units were made
part of the System. In 1990, otherwise protected areas (OPAs)
were also included in the System. OPAs are public or private
lands already held for conservation purposes, such as wildlife
refuges or parks. Like system units, OPAs also are delineated
on maps referenced in law. Therefore, any change to the
boundary of an OPA requires Congressional action.
OPAs are based on maps prepared by the Department of the
Interior and included in a report to Congress that formed the
basis for the 1990 additions to the System. That report stated
that OPAs shown on the maps were in fact areas held for
conservation purposes. Unfortunately, boundaries drawn for some
OPAs have been shown to be poor renditions of the actual
boundaries of the underlying conservation areas. Once included
in the System, property included in OPAs become subject to the
same flood insurance restrictions as those in System units.
Consequently, any owners of developed property incorrectly
labeled as property held for conservation purposes lose their
eligibility for federal flood insurance.
Since 1990, Congress has corrected inaccurate boundaries
for OPAs in New York, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina,
Florida and Alabama. Most recently these modifications have
been conducted using digital mapping technology, substantially
increasing the reliability of the data.
This legislation would revise the boundaries of the
Matagorda Peninsula Unit (T07) in Texas to remove the 19-acre
Matagorda Dunes Homesites subdivision. This new map would more
accurately reflect the intent of the original 1982 CBRA.
According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, the subdivision
should not have been included in T-07 because it contained a
full complement of infrastructure including roads, potable
water, wastewater and electricity prior to designation. In
fact, the subdivision exceeded the infrastructure criteria used
to determine what is a ``undeveloped coastal barrier'' within
the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System. Until
recently, these private property owners had both State wind
storm insurance and federal flood insurance which have now been
cancelled. The fundamental goal of this measure is to correct
this mistake and to accurately redraw the boundaries of the
unit.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 154 was introduced on January 7, 2003, by Congressman
Ron Paul (R-TX). The bill was referred to the Committee on
Resources and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on
Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. On September 25,
2003, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On October
29, 2003, the Full Resources Committee met to consider the
bill. The Subcommittee was discharged from further
consideration of the bill by unanimous consent. Chairman
Richard Pombo (R-CA) offered an amendment in the nature of a
substitute that replaced generic language with a specific
reference to a July 12, 2002, replacement coastal barrier
resource map and language ensuring that the new map will be on
file and available for inspection at the Department of the
Interior. The amendment was adopted by unanimous consent. The
bill, as amended, was then ordered favorably reported to the
House of Representatives by unanimous consent.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations
are reflected in the body of this report.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B)
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by 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, this
bill does not contain any new budget authority, credit
authority, or an increase or decrease in tax expenditures.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), enactment
of this bill could increase federal revenues by less than
$100,000 annually, but these collection would be partially
offset each year by new mandatory spending. CBO concludes that
``H.R. 154 would not have any significant impact on the federal
budget. The bill could affect direct spending, but we expect
that net changes would be negligible.''
3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. This bill does
not authorize funding and therefore, clause 3(c)(4) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives does not
apply.
4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate
for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, November 10, 2003.
Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 154, a bill to
exclude certain properties from the John H. Chafee Coastal
Barrier Resources System.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.
Sincerely,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 154--A bill to exclude certain properties from the John H. Chafee
Coastal Barrier Resources System
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 154 would not have any
significant impact on the federal budget. The bill could affect
direct spending, but we expect that net changes would be
negligible.
H.R. 154 would modify the boundaries of the Matagorda
Peninsula Unit (in Texas) of the Coastal Barrier Resources
System to exclude about 45 lots or houses on 19 acres of
private land. This change would enable the owners of these
properties to obtain federal flood insurance. CBO estimates
that, once insurance policies have been written on all
properties, premium collections into the national flood
insurance fund would increase by less than $100,000 annually.
Collections would be partially offset each year by new
mandatory spending for underwriting and administrative
expenses. The federal government may also incur additional
costs for losses associated with any future floods that might
affect the newly insured properties, but CBO has no basis for
predicting such events.
The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
On October 23, 2003, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S.
1066, a bill to correct a technical error from Unit T-07 of the
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System, as ordered
reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works on October 15, 2003. The provisions of S. 1066 and H.R.
154 are identical, as are the estimated costs.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Deborah Reis.
This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing
law.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
While I supported the passage of H.R. 154 by Unanimous
Consent in the House Committee on Resources, I remain concerned
about legislative erosion of the Coastal Barrier Resources
System.
Coastal barriers are natural landscape features that
protect the mainland, lagoons, wetlands and salt marshes from
the full force of wind, wave and tidal energy. Composed of sand
and other loose sediments, these elongated, narrow land forms
are dynamic ecosystems and prone to frequent disruption by
storms. Despite their vulnerability to hurricane damage, these
areas are attractive places to locate private homes and
resorts. However, the force of nature on these systems
frequently exceeds these human endeavors. Storms destroy these
properties, jeopardize safety of the public and emergency
response personnel, and put taxpayers at risk. Construction in
these fragile ecosystems damages wildlife habitat and can be
the cause of further erosion.
The Coastal Barrier Resources System is designed to limit
federal development incentives on undeveloped coastal barriers,
to prevent the loss of human life and property from storms,
minimize federal expenditures and protect habitat for fish and
wildlife. Since its expansion in 1990, however, numerous
petitions have been made to Congress to adjust the system
boundaries or to exclude coastal properties from the system.
The intent of Congress in creating this system is to distance
the federal government from providing any incentive for such
development.
H.R. 154 addresses a unique situation in which improvement
in mapping technology revealed an erroneous inclusion of a 45-
home community in the system more than 20 years ago. This is an
appropriate situation for congressional consideration. However,
annual requests for congressional intervention in the
boundaries of the system indicate a need to comprehensively
review this system, to identify and resolve inconsistencies,
and to provide guidelines under which future reviews and
appeals may occur.
Wayne T. Gilchrest.