- LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2437, TO REVISE THE BOUNDARIES OF A UNIT OF THE JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM IN TOPSAIL, NORTH CAROLINA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 3415, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CONVEY TO THE MIDVALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT THE PILOT BUTTE POWER PLANT IN THE STATE OF WYOMING, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, "PILOT BUTTE POWER PLANT CONVEYANCE ACT"; H.R. 4385, TO EXTEND AUTHORIZATION OF THE RECLAMATION STATES EMERGENCY DROUGHT RELIEF ACT OF 1991, "DROUGHT PREPAREDNESS ACT"; AND H.R. 5490, TO AMEND THE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES ACT TO EXPAND THE JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, "BOLSTERING ECOSYSTEMS AGAINST COASTAL HARM ACT", OR "BEACH ACT"

    [House Hearing, 118 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       H.R. 2437, H.R. 3415, H.R. 4385,
                                 AND H.R. 5490

    =======================================================================

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND
                                      FISHERIES

                                     OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                          Thursday, September 28, 2023

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 118-66

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

    [GRAPHIC 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
    53-644 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                         BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                        DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                      RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

    Doug Lamborn, CO			Grace F. Napolitano, CA
    Robert J. Wittman, VA			Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    Tom McClintock, CA			    CNMI
    Paul Gosar, AZ				Jared Huffman, CA
    Garret Graves, LA			Ruben Gallego, AZ
    Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS		Joe Neguse, CO
    Doug LaMalfa, CA			Mike Levin, CA
    Daniel Webster, FL			Katie Porter, CA
    Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR		Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
    Russ Fulcher, ID			Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
    Pete Stauber, MN			Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
    John R. Curtis, UT			Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
    Tom Tiffany, WI				Kevin Mullin, CA
    Jerry Carl, AL				Val T. Hoyle, OR
    Matt Rosendale, MT			Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
    Lauren Boebert, CO			Seth Magaziner, RI
    Cliff Bentz, OR				Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
    Jen Kiggans, VA				Ed Case, HI
    Jim Moylan, GU				Debbie Dingell, MI
    Wesley P. Hunt, TX			Susie Lee, NV
    Mike Collins, GA
    Anna Paulina Luna, FL
    John Duarte, CA
    Harriet M. Hageman, WY

                        Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                          Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                     Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                       http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                     ------

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

                           CLIFF BENTZ, OR, Chairman
                          JEN KIGGANS, VA, Vice Chair
                       JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member

    Robert J. Wittman, VA                Grace F. Napolitano, CA
    Tom McClintock, CA                   Mike Levin, CA
    Garret Graves, LA                    Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
    Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS         Kevin Mullin, CA
    Doug LaMalfa, CA                     Val T. Hoyle, OR
    Daniel Webster, FL                   Seth Magaziner, RI
    Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR         Debbie Dingell, MI
    Jerry Carl, AL                       Ruben Gallego, AZ
    Lauren Boebert, CO                   Joe Neguse, CO
    Jen Kiggans, VA                      Katie Porter, CA
    Anna Paulina Luna, FL                Ed Case, HI
    John Duarte, CA                      Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
    Harriet M. Hageman, WY
    Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                                     ------

                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Thursday, September 28, 2023.....................     1

    Statement of Members:

        Bentz, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Oregon............................................     2

        Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California........................................     3

        Panel I:

        Hageman, Hon. Harriet M., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Wyoming.......................................     4
        Neguse, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Colorado................................................     6
        Kiggans, Hon. Jen, a Representative in Congress from the
          Commonwealth of Virginia...................................     7
        Murphy, Hon. Gregory F., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of North Carolina................................     8

    Statement of Witnesses:

        Panel II:

        Strickler, Matt, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Fish and
          Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, Washington,
          DC.........................................................     9
            Prepared statement of....................................    11
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    16
        Hein, Christopher, Associate Professor, Virginia Institute of
          Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.................    17
            Prepared statement of....................................    18

        Lynn, Steve, Manager, Midvale Irrigation District, Pavillion,
          Wyoming....................................................    24
            Prepared statement of....................................    26

        Leonard, Tom, Alderman, Town of North Topsail Beach, North
          Carolina...................................................    27
            Prepared statement of....................................    28
        Stiles, William ``Skip'' A. Jr., Senior Advisor, Wetlands
          Watch, Norfolk, Virginia...................................    42
            Prepared statement of....................................    44

    Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

        U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Statement for the Record on H.R.
          3415 and H.R. 4385.........................................    57

    LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2437, TO REVISE THE BOUNDARIES OF A UNIT OF
     THE JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM IN TOPSAIL, NORTH
    CAROLINA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 3415, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF
      THE INTERIOR TO CONVEY TO THE MIDVALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT THE PILOT
      BUTTE POWER PLANT IN THE STATE OF WYOMING, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
       ``PILOT BUTTE POWER PLANT CONVEYANCE ACT''; H.R. 4385, TO EXTEND
    AUTHORIZATION OF THE RECLAMATION STATES EMERGENCY DROUGHT RELIEF ACT OF
    1991, ``DROUGHT PREPAREDNESS ACT''; AND H.R. 5490, TO AMEND THE COASTAL
      BARRIER RESOURCES ACT TO EXPAND THE JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER
       RESOURCES SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``BOLSTERING ECOSYSTEMS
                  AGAINST COASTAL HARM ACT'', OR ``BEACH ACT''

                                  ----------

                          Thursday, September 28, 2023

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                 Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
    Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Bentz
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Bentz, LaMalfa, Webster, Carl,
    Kiggans, Hageman; Huffman, and Neguse.
        Also present: Representatives Ciscomani and Murphy.

        Mr. Bentz. The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and
    Fisheries will come to order.
        Good morning, everyone. I want to welcome Members,
    witnesses, and our guests in the audience to today's hearing.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
    recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
        Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
    the hearing are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Member.
    I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other Members'
    opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they
    are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
        Without objection, so ordered.
        I also ask unanimous consent the gentleman from North
    Carolina, Mr. Murphy, and the gentleman from Arizona, Mr.
    Ciscomani, be allowed to participate in today's hearing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        We are here today to consider four legislative measures:
    H.R. 2437 to revise the boundaries of a unit of the John H.
    Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System in Topsail, North
    Carolina, sponsored by Representative Murphy of North Carolina;
    H.R. 3415, the Pilot Butte Power Plant Conveyance Act,
    sponsored by Representative Hageman of Wyoming; H.R. 4385, the
    Drought Preparedness Act, sponsored by Representative Neguse of
    Colorado; and H.R. 5490, the BEACH Act, sponsored by
    Representative Kiggans of Virginia.
        I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLIFF BENTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                        FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

        Mr. Bentz. Today, we are meeting to discuss four bills that
    address a variety of regional issues, from transferring local
    control of Western water infrastructure to updating coastal
    barrier maps. The bills under consideration at the hearing
    address issues of local importance, remove barriers created by
    Federal processes and bureaucracy, and put communities back in
    the driver's seat.
        H.R. 3415, introduced by Congresswoman Hageman of Wyoming,
    provides greater flexibility and autonomy to the Midvale
    Irrigation District by conveying the Pilot Butte Power Plant to
    the District. Reclamation places this power plant in the
    mothballed status in 2008. And because it is considered a
    reserved works, it requires an Act of Congress for this
    transfer to occur.
        H.R. 4385, introduced by Congressman Neguse, extends
    authorization for emergency authorities that allow the Bureau
    of Reclamation to mitigate the impacts of severe drought in
    Western states. At its core, Reclamation was established to
    provide water in the arid West. Dealing with drought conditions
    was then and continues to be a significant part of
    Reclamation's mission.
        H.R. 2437, introduced by Congressman Murphy, would revise
    the boundaries of Coastal Barrier Resources System Unit L06 in
    North Topsail Beach, North Carolina. I am aware this issue has
    been ongoing for decades, and I hope we can provide some
    finality on the issue.
        H.R. 5490, introduced by Congresswoman Kiggans, enacts the
    final recommended Coastal Barrier Resources System maps
    transmitted to Congress in 2021. After Hurricane Sandy,
    Congress mandated that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    update the System maps. These maps will only become effective
    if enacted into law by Congress. Additionally, the bill makes
    improvements to the CBRA statute.
        I thank the Members for their work on these bills, and I
    thank the witnesses for testifying today.
        I now recognize Ranking Member Huffman for his opening
    statement.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to the
    witnesses.
        When President Reagan signed the piece of legislation that
    we call CBRA in 1982, he said that the Act would ``halt the
    Federal subsidy spiral'' by discouraging Federal investments in
    development on storm-prone coastal land, which, if developed,
    would put human lives and property at risk and cost taxpayers
    billions of dollars in disaster relief. It was a smart,
    forward-looking law, and in the years since CBRA was enacted it
    has saved the United States over $9.5 billion in disaster costs
    alone, protected millions of acres of habitat, and probably an
    awful lot of lives, as well.
        Today, as we face stronger and more frequent storms and
    rising sea level, the value proposition of CBRA is more
    important than ever. Scientists estimate that CBRA will save
    taxpayers up to $108 billion by 2068.
        In 2012, as Hurricane Sandy hit the Atlantic coast, intact
    barrier islands did their job. They absorbed the brunt of the
    storm's energy, saving lives and protecting property. Still,
    many coastal barrier islands and ecosystems were significantly
    altered. As a result, the Fish and Wildlife Service initiated a
    project to update the maps of the Coastal Barrier Resources
    System. H.R. 5490 legislates the incorporation of these maps to
    modernize CBRA, and that is a good thing.
        It also makes additional updates to CBRA, including
    requiring disclosure to prospective buyers that a property is
    in the CBRA System, and clarifying Federal expenditures in
    Otherwise Protected Areas, or OPAs.
        The bill is a significant step in the right direction, but
    it omits several important sea-level-related provisions
    included in the Senate version. I look forward to hearing about
    the value of those provisions from our witness, Mr. Skip
    Stiles. Mr. Stiles is an expert in coastal and wetland
    management, and has helped the state of Virginia prepare its
    coastal zone for sea level rise and other climate change
    impacts.
        We have another CBRA-related bill on the agenda, H.R. 2437,
    which removes areas in North Topsail Beach from the Coastal
    Barrier Resources System.
        Look, I empathize with the North Topsail Beach community.
    They are struggling with the consequences of climate change.
    But I also recognize their situation is an unfortunate example
    of why it is important to modernize CBRA to further protect
    coastal communities and prepare for imminent climate change
    impacts. Removing parts of North Topsail Beach from the System
    would endanger residents and increase costs to taxpayers. This
    is not the precedent that we want to set right now for other
    vulnerable coastal communities.
        We will also discuss two bills today that fall under the
    Bureau of Reclamation's authority.
        H.R. 4385, the Drought Preparedness Act, introduced by Mr.
    Neguse, it reauthorizes Reclamation's drought response program
    through 2028. The current authorization is set to expire this
    year. This program has provided invaluable assistance for
    drought contingency planning and management. I appreciate Mr.
    Neguse's leadership on this.
        As many of our districts face near annual droughts, it is
    critical that Congress act to ensure programs like this are in
    place to mitigate climate-induced impacts of drought on our
    water supply. So, I hope my colleagues will join me to ensure a
    successful reauthorization of this program.
        A final bill on our agenda is from Representative Hageman
    of Wyoming. It would transfer ownership of the Pilot Butte
    Power Plant, currently owned by Reclamation, to the Midvale
    Irrigation District. This power plant is under Reclamation's
    Riverton unit, it began operations in 1925. The facility was
    operated seasonally until it was removed from service in 1973,
    and ultimately again in 2008 due to high operation and
    maintenance costs. This bill would allow Reclamation and the
    District to negotiate a mutually beneficial transfer agreement.
    I look forward to hearing more on that legislation from our
    witnesses.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and yield back.

        Mr. Bentz. I will now introduce our first panel.
        As is typical with legislative hearings, the bills'
    sponsors are recognized for 5 minutes each to discuss their
    bills. With us today are Congresswoman Harriet Hageman,
    Congressman Joe Neguse, Congresswoman Jen Kiggans, and
    Congressman Greg Murphy.
        I now recognize Ms. Hageman for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

        Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    everyone for being here today.
        I am before the Committee to advocate for my bill, the
    Pilot Butte Power Plant Conveyance Act, which requires the
    Bureau of Reclamation to enter into good faith negotiations
    with the Midvale Irrigation District for the conveyance of the
    Pilot Butte Power Plant located in Pavillion, Wyoming.
        This proposition is not merely an administrative change or
    a conveyance of responsibilities, but a critical step toward
    improving water use for communities in need and responsible
    resource management. Transferring ownership of the power plant
    to Midvale Irrigation District will provide for greater
    flexibility and relieve administrative burdens for the Bureau
    of Reclamation.
        Local entities are often better equipped to understand the
    unique needs and challenges of their communities, and that is
    why the Bureau has been using its authority to transfer title
    to local projects throughout the 17 Western states. By placing
    greater control of the hydro plant in the hands of Midvale
    Irrigation District, we empower it to make decisions that
    directly impact its region. This promotes a sense of ownership
    and accountability that can lead to more efficient operation
    and responsive governance.
        Secondly, this transfer can lead to significant economic
    benefits. Hydroelectric plants have the potential to generate
    substantial revenue. By allowing Midvale to control these
    resources, it can reinvest the profits into the community. This
    will ultimately mean improved infrastructure and more support
    for local businesses. The economic ripple effect can be
    profound and positively impact the lives of those living in the
    District.
        Moreover, Midvale Irrigation District is intimately
    familiar with the intricacies of water management and
    distribution in the area. Updating and repairing this hydro
    plant will expand the state's portfolio, allowing for a more
    holistic approach to resource management. This will help
    Wyoming to optimize water usage, balancing the needs of
    agriculture, industry, and the environment more effectively.
    This holistic approach can be instrumental in mitigating water
    scarcity issues that plague the West.
        We have an obvious need to increase the amount of water
    stored through surface infrastructure and groundwater storage
    projects. According to the Pacific Institute, California's
    urban areas are wasting between 7 and 70,000 and 3.9 million
    acre-feet of water every year, depending on how dry or wet the
    year is, simply because of a lack of infrastructure.
        This is a year of extreme abundance. Many Westerners are
    probably wondering why it is so difficult to capitalize off of
    a year like this. For far too long, they have watched certain
    leaders shrug their shoulders and say, ``It is not that
    simple.'' But the reality is we need additional infrastructure.
    It is taking important actions like conveying this power plant
    to the Midvale Irrigation District that will allow us to more
    effectively manage our water and provide power to our
    communities.
        Additionally, environmental stewardship is a critical
    consideration. Wyomingites are more attuned to the ecological
    nuances of their surroundings. By placing the hydro plant under
    local control, we increase the practice of responsible
    environmental practices. This includes measures to protect
    aquatic life, maintain water quality, and ensure the
    sustainable operation of the plant without compromising our
    ecosystems.
        Mr. Lynn will have the opportunity to talk about this
    further in his testimony. I thank you for traveling from
    Wyoming here today.
        And in our line of questioning, he is an expert on this
    topic and is able to provide an expansive background on the
    preparedness of the irrigation district to assume
    responsibility of ownership in addition to responsibilities to
    maintain and operate this facility.
        Transferring Pilot Butte Power Plant to Midvale Irrigation
    District is a move that will empower Wyoming communities, boost
    Wyoming economies, enhance resource management, and promote
    responsible environmental practices. It is a decision that
    reflects the values of decentralization, self-determination,
    and self-reliance.
        The Pilot Butte Power Plant Conveyance Act will certainly
    bring about positive change and prosperity for both the local
    community and the state of Wyoming as a whole.
        Again, thank you for being here. I appreciate the support
    on this particular bill. It is an important one for the state
    of Wyoming.
        With that, I yield back, and thank you.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Ms. Hageman. I now recognize Mr.
    Neguse for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE NEGUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

        Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member
    Huffman, for allowing me the opportunity to testify today on my
    bill, the Drought Preparedness Act.
        And I also want to say thank you to the Chairman and to the
    Ranking Member for considering my bill. I very much appreciate
    your indulgence in that regard.
        As we know in the West, and Ranking Member Huffman
    articulated this so well, despite a good moisture year for many
    parts of my state of Colorado and other parts of the West this
    year, we are still seeing continual drought conditions over the
    past several years that are worsening as a result of climate
    change. Scientists and agency experts predict that these
    conditions will only continue through the coming years, and it
    is critical that we provide our Federal agencies, state
    governments, local partners with the resources that they need
    to prepare for and respond to the conditions.
        Let me just say very clearly, and perhaps stating the
    obvious, the Colorado River, the headwaters of which are in my
    district in western Colorado, is in crisis. The Bureau of
    Reclamation, as we all know, is currently working with the
    Colorado River Basin states, tribes, local stakeholders to
    generate additional solutions and long-term reductions in usage
    along the river that are more sustainable with the water levels
    that we have been seeing.
        This is an important time for the Colorado River and many
    other rivers across the West. We need to make sure that we are
    providing our states and agencies with every tool possible to
    combat this crisis. And this is important because from my
    perspective and for my constituents, Colorado has done its
    part. Colorado's water users have done their part. It is time,
    in our view, for our colleagues to step up to the plate.
        And that is why I was proud earlier this year to start the
    Colorado River Caucus, a bipartisan caucus with colleagues from
    across the upper basin and lower basin states, Republicans and
    Democrats, coming together to have candid conversations about a
    way forward, partnering with the Bureau of Reclamation on
    important initiatives and activities that they are pursuing,
    and it is also why I was proud to introduce this particular
    bill, which is bipartisan with my colleague, Representative
    Ciscomani from Arizona.
        And as the Ranking Member so well articulated, the bill is
    a simple one. It reauthorizes the Bureau of Reclamation's
    Drought Response Program, which is currently set to expire in
    several days at the end of the Fiscal Year. The Drought
    Response Program was established under the Reclamation States
    Emergency Drought Relief Act. It provides vital assistance for
    drought contingency planning, authorizes emergency actions that
    the Bureau can take, and supports drought resiliency projects
    supported by drought contingency plans. All very important,
    particularly given the moment we are currently living in.
        The Drought Preparedness Act would reauthorize these
    authorities, their appropriations, through 2028, would allow
    for continued actions by the Bureau of Reclamation. I know that
    the Bureau, in their written testimony, I suspect they will
    talk more about this during their oral testimony, has stated
    that they require an increased cost ceiling for the program in
    order to continue operations through 2028. That is provided by
    the bill before us, H.R. 4385.
        I hope that I can work with members of the Committee on a
    bipartisan basis to ensure that the Bureau continues to have
    both the authorities and the funds that it needs to carry out
    these critical programs. And again, I just want to say a note
    of gratitude to the Chairman and to your staff, and look
    forward to working with the Committee to move this bill across
    the finish line.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Neguse. I now recognize Mrs.
    Kiggans for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. JEN KIGGANS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                   FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

        Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here to speak
    to my bill, the Bolstering Ecosystems Against Coastal Harm Act.
    We affectionately refer to it as the BEACH Act, an acronym my
    team is very proud of, given the bill's significant role in
    protecting our coasts and beaches.
        The BEACH Act furthers the mission of the 1982 Coastal
    Barrier Resources Act. This landmark conservation legislation,
    spearheaded by bipartisan collaboration, aimed to conserve
    barrier islands along the Atlantic and Gulf Coast, fostering
    the protection of these ecologically sensitive regions. By
    barring the use of Federal funds for commercial development,
    CBRA sought to preserve the biodiversity and ecological balance
    of our coastlines, safeguard habitats for countless species,
    and protect human communities from storm surges and erosion,
    all while being a thoughtful steward of taxpayer dollars.
        The BEACH Act would enact the updated CBRA maps proposed by
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, including almost 100,000
    new acres added in Virginia. I represent Virginia's 2nd
    District, including our Eastern Shore, almost the entirety of
    which remains underdeveloped and protected by CBRA. CBRA
    restricts the use of Federal funding for development in these
    areas, keeping taxpayer dollars out of risky commercial
    investments, and simultaneously protecting our most valuable
    coastlines.
        Virginia's coastal ecosystems play a crucial role in the
    state's environmental, economic, and cultural identity. The
    barrier islands and coastal wetlands acts as the first line of
    defense against storm surges, protecting inland communities as
    well as vital infrastructure. Moreover, our state's coasts are
    home to all sorts of wildlife, all relying on the health and
    longevity of these ecosystems. Updating the maps is essential
    to reflect changes in barrier configuration, identify new areas
    for inclusion, and ensure the optimal conservation of our
    shoreline.
        I wanted to thank the witnesses for being here and just for
    being interested in our bills today, especially Dr. Hein. We
    love working with VIMS, and we are excited to get down for a
    tour one day. And we have a couple people from my district here
    today, so thank you very much just for attending.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mrs. Kiggans. I now recognize Dr.
    Murphy for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREGORY F. MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

        Dr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am blessed to
    introduce H.R. 2437 to revise the boundaries of a unit of the
    John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System in Topsail,
    North Carolina, and for other purposes.
        This is essentially a fairly clean bill that the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service wrongly designated the north end of
    Topsail Island. And this is going to essentially correct a 40-
    year mapping error made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    My predecessor, Walter B. Jones, Jr., tried many years to get
    this error corrected, and hopefully this will get done now.
        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wrongly designated the
    north end of Topsail Island, comprising the town of North
    Topsail Beach, as being in the Coastal Barrier Resources
    System, despite the fact it was already under development and
    had a great deal of infrastructure actually in the ground at
    the time of designation. My bill would correct this error by
    taking out a small area from the Coastal Barrier Resources
    System.
        The town of North Topsail Beach has provided the
    Subcommittee with extensive research documenting the existence
    of that infrastructure. This error wrongly prohibited the town
    of North Topsail Beach and many homeowners from accessing
    Federal programs, including the FAIB, IP, the Veterans
    Administration loans, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shore
    protection projects.
        Today, you will hear the testimony of one of my
    constituents, Alderman Tom Leonard, who will give you a great
    amount of detail on this matter.
        This is just about fair treatment under the law. Areas that
    were already under development when the Chafee Coastal Barrier
    Resource System law was passed in 1982 were not supposed to be
    designated within the Coastal Barrier Resources System. The
    Federal Government made an error with North Topsail Beach, and
    I am asking that error be corrected.
        Lastly, the staff director of the Subcommittee has actually
    been on the ground and looked at the area in North Topsail
    Beach firsthand.
        Thank you again for your consideration. I look forward to
    working with you and the members of the Committee to hopefully
    move this bill forward. Thank you very much.
        I will yield back my time.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Dr. Murphy.
        I will now introduce our second panel: Mr. Matt Strickler,
    Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks with
    the Department of the Interior; Dr. Christopher Hein, Wakefield
    Associate Professor of Marine Science at the Virginia Institute
    of Marine Science in Gloucester Point, Virginia; Mr. Steve
    Lynn, Manager for the Midvale Irrigation District in Pavillion,
    Wyoming; Mr. William Stiles, Senior Advisor for Wetlands Watch
    in Norfolk, Virginia; and Mr. Tom Leonard, Alderman for the
    Town of North Topsail Beach, North Carolina.
        Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules,
    they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their
    entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
        To begin your testimony, please press the ``talk'' button
    on the microphone.
        We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn
    green. When you have 1 minute remaining, the light will turn
    yellow. And at the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red,
    and I will ask you to please complete your statement.
        I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member
    questioning.
        I now recognize Mr. Strickler for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF MATT STRICKLER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, FISH
    AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON,
                                   DC

        Mr. Strickler. Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member
    Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. It is good to see you
    again. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on two
    bills related to the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources
    System.
        Coastal barriers and associated natural features like
    wetlands provide essential protection for communities against
    storms and erosion. They also provide important spawning,
    nursery, nesting, and feeding areas for fish and wildlife.
    Coastal barriers are highly dynamic landscapes, and their
    ability to absorb the impacts of strong winds, waves, and
    currents is what makes them so effective at sheltering the
    mainland behind them. It is also what makes them risky places
    to build.
        Congress understood this when it passed the Coastal Barrier
    Resources Act, or CBRA, in 1982. While CBRA does not prevent
    private property owners from developing their land, it does
    prevent them from receiving subsidies from the Federal
    Government that would encourage them to do so, or that would
    expend taxpayer dollars to help them rebuild.
        In passing CBRA and in reauthorizing and expanding the
    System multiple times, Congress has sent a clear and fair
    message: barrier islands are dangerous places; develop them at
    your own risk.
        This market-based approach to conservation and hazard
    mitigation has been incredibly effective. A peer-reviewed study
    published in the Journal of Coastal Research in 2019 estimated
    that CBRA has saved more than $9 billion in Federal disaster
    aid alone, and is projected to save billions more in the
    future. Development rates within the System are about 75
    percent lower than outside the System.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for
    administering CBRA, which includes maintaining and updating the
    official maps of the System, making recommendations to Congress
    for changes to the boundaries, and consulting with Federal
    agencies on CBRA compliance. It is up to Congress to consider
    and adopt recommended map revisions into law.
        The complete set of System maps was last comprehensively
    revised in 1990, using now-antiquated techniques and base maps.
    Since 2000, the Service has worked with Congress on a
    comprehensive map modernization process that utilizes 21st
    century mapping technology, includes public input, and is
    underpinned by statutory development criteria and documented
    objective mapping protocols. To date, the Service has produced
    comprehensively revised and modernized maps for more than 30
    percent of the System's acreage. Congress has adopted a subset
    of these maps covering 9 percent of the System. The Service has
    also digitized but not comprehensively revised the remaining
    maps for the System.
        H.R. 5490, the Bolstering Ecosystems Against Coastal Harm
    Act, would reauthorize CBRA and adopt comprehensively revised
    maps prepared by the Service for more than 450 System units.
    This would correct past mapping errors, including removing
    hundreds of private properties that were accidentally included
    in the System. Adopting these maps would also add areas to the
    System, reducing development pressure and helping conserve
    natural storm buffers and maintain habitat for fish and
    wildlife. The bill includes a grandfathering clause for
    existing structures within units included in the legislation.
    It would also create a disclosure requirement for real estate
    transactions.
        The Administration strongly supports reauthorization of
    CBRA, which has enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress and the
    White House for more than four decades. We also strongly
    support enactment of the recommended revised maps that the
    Service has transmitted to Congress. The Administration
    supports H.R. 5490 with some recommended changes, and we thank
    Representative Kiggans for introducing this legislation.
        While the BEACH Act takes important steps, the
    Administration recommends additional amendments to revise the
    definition of a coastal barrier to include areas that are and
    will be vulnerable to coastal hazards in the future; assess the
    application of CBRA to certain high-hazard coastal areas other
    than barrier islands through a pilot project; and authorize
    adequate funding for the Service to fully carry out its
    mandates under CBRA.
        We also look forward to working with the Subcommittee to
    clarify a provision related to Otherwise Protected Areas, which
    we believe has negative unintended consequences as currently
    written.
        The other bill under discussion related to CBRA, H.R. 2437,
    would require the Secretary to propose a revised map for CBRA
    Unit L06 on Topsail Island, North Carolina. The bill would
    remove a substantial area from the System, including many
    structures that were built after Congress put the land in the
    System in 1982. The Administration opposes the bill.
        The designation of this unit has been thoroughly reviewed
    and reaffirmed multiple times by Congress, the Service, and the
    courts. Most recently, in 2018, Congress adopted a
    comprehensively reviewed and revised map. This map followed the
    Service's objective mapping process to remove land and
    structures that were included in error, and was subject to
    public review and comment.
        The Service does not recommend any further substantial
    changes to the boundary, as it would be inconsistent with the
    objective mapping criteria that the Service applies for any
    recommended map revisions. However, the Service does support
    the adoption of our 2021 map for Unit L06, which is included in
    Title 2 of H.R. 5490, and this map would correct a small
    mapping and technical error, removing about 2.5 acres and two
    homes from the System.
        We appreciate our long partnership with the Subcommittee in
    administrating CBRA, and look forward to discussing our views
    with the Subcommittee.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Strickler follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Matthew J. Strickler, Deputy Assistant Secretary
          for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior
                           on H.R. 5490 and H.R. 2437

    Introduction

        Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members
    of the Subcommittee. I am Matthew J. Strickler, Deputy Assistant
    Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks within the Department of the
    Interior (Department). I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on
    two bills related to the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources
    System (CBRS or System).
        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) mission is working
    with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants,
    and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.
    Congress' stated objectives in the bipartisan enactment of the Coastal
    Barrier Resources Act (CBRA or Act) in 1982 were to save lives; save
    taxpayer dollars; and conserve coastal barrier habitat by restricting
    new federal expenditures and financial assistance, as such expenditures
    encourage development in these sensitive and dynamic areas. Coastal
    barriers and the associated wetlands provide essential spawning,
    nursery, nesting, and feeding areas for fish and wildlife, and also
    serve to protect inland coastal communities from erosion and coastal
    storms and support American jobs in the fishing, recreation and outdoor
    tourism industries. I am proud of our work in administering CBRA to
    achieve its objectives. These objectives align with our mission and
    have been supported by both Republican and Democratic administrations
    alike over the last four decades.
        When President Reagan signed CBRA into law, he characterized it as
    a program that meets a national problem with less federal involvement,
    not more.\1\ The law leverages the free market to achieve its goals.
    The law does not prohibit or regulate development, but reduces
    federally funded incentives for new development in hurricane- and
    erosion-prone areas, where building puts people in harm's way and may
    otherwise not be economical. Recent studies have shown that CBRA has
    been highly successful in achieving its objectives. The law is
    estimated to have saved over $9 billion in federal disaster aid and is
    projected to save billions more into the future as climate change
    exacerbates existing hazards along our coasts.\2\ Urban development
    rates within the CBRS are about 75 percent lower than those outside of
    the CBRS, with density levels similar to parks and wildlife refuges.\3\
    Parcels within the CBRS are significantly less likely to be armored
    with hardened structures such as seawalls.\4\ These reductions in
    development and shoreline armoring result in better habitat and more
    resilient beaches.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Ronald Reagan, ``Statement on Signing the Coastal Barrier
    Resources Act,'' October 18, 1982, The Public Papers of President
    Ronald W. Reagan, Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, accessed August
    29, 2023, https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/statement-
    signing-coastal-barrier-resources-act.
        \2\ Andrew S. Coburn and John C. Whitehead, ``An Analysis of
    Federal Expenditures Related to the Coastal Barrier Resources Act
    (CBRA) of 1982,'' Journal of Coastal Research 35, no. 6 (November
    2019): 1358-1361, accessed August 29, 2023, https://doi.org/10.2112/
    JCOASTRES-D-18-00114.1.
        \3\ Jordan Branham et al., ``Removing federal subsidies from high-
    hazard coastal areas slows development,'' Frontiers in Ecology and the
    Environment 20, no. 9 (June 21, 2022): 500-506, accessed August 29,
    2023, https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2532; Kyle Onda et al., ``Does
    Removal of Federal Subsidies Discourage Urban Development? An
    Evaluation of the US Coastal Barrier Resources Act,'' PLOS ONE 15, no.
    6 (June 2020): e0233888, accessed August 29, 2023, https://doi.org/
    10.1371/journal.pone.0233888.
        \4\ Jordan Branham et al., ``How does the removal of federal
    subsidies affect investment in coastal protection infrastructure?,''
    Land Use Policy 102 (March 2021): 105245, https://doi.org/10.1016/
    j.landusepol.2020.105245.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The bills under consideration today seek to reauthorize CBRA and
    modify the boundaries of the CBRS. We offer the following background
    information along with our views on the two bills. We look forward to
    working with the Subcommittee as you consider these revisions to the
    law and the maps.
    Overview of the CBRS and the Service's Map Modernization Efforts

        With the passage of CBRA (Pub. L. 97-348) in 1982, Congress
    designated privately-owned areas along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
    coasts within the CBRS. Most new federal expenditures and financial
    assistance, including federal flood insurance, are prohibited in
    designated areas. In 1990, Congress reauthorized CBRA (Pub. L. 101-591)
    and expanded the CBRS to include both additional private lands as well
    as areas held for conservation and recreation. The CBRS now encompasses
    870 geographic units spanning about 3.5 million acres along the
    Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto
    Rico coasts. The law contains exceptions for certain activities and
    allows pre-existing structures added in 1982 and 1990 to maintain their
    federal flood insurance until such time that they are substantially
    improved or damaged. The Service is responsible for administering CBRA,
    which includes maintaining and updating the official maps of the CBRS,
    making recommendations to Congress for changes to the boundaries, and
    consulting with federal agencies that propose to spend funds within the
    CBRS under the exceptions. Congress plays an important role in the
    implementation of CBRA by considering and adopting the Service's
    recommended map revisions into law.
        The complete set of maps depicting the CBRS was last
    comprehensively revised in 1990 using now antiquated manual
    cartographic technologies and base maps. The 1990s-era maps are
    imprecise, difficult to use, and in some cases contain errors affecting
    property owners and project proponents. Congress recognized the
    challenges associated with the maps, and in the 2000 reauthorization of
    the Act (Pub. L. 106-514) directed the Service to conduct a Digital
    Mapping Pilot Project (pilot project). At that time, Congress also
    codified the development criteria that the Service must consider when
    evaluating whether additions to or removals from the CBRS are
    appropriate. The pilot project was transmitted to Congress in 2016.
        In 2006, Congress reauthorized CBRA (Pub. L. 109-226) and directed
    the Service to modernize all the CBRS maps and recommend qualifying
    additions. Since then, throughout several Administrations, the Service
    has worked in a bipartisan manner with Congress to make significant
    improvements to the maps through a transparent ``comprehensive map
    modernization'' process that utilizes 21st century mapping technology,
    includes public input, and is underpinned by the statutory development
    criteria and objective mapping protocols. In 2013, the Service was
    provided Hurricane Sandy Supplemental funding to comprehensively
    modernize the maps of the CBRS along the Mid-Atlantic and New England
    coasts. Maps for all CBRS areas in the following nine states are
    included in this project: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
    Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia,
    covering 16 percent of the total existing acreage of the CBRS. The
    Service transmitted these 176 final recommended maps to Congress on
    April 5, 2022, as part of our Report to Congress: John H. Chafee
    Coastal Barrier Resources System Hurricane Sandy Remapping Project.
        To date, including the Hurricane Sandy maps, the Service has
    produced comprehensively revised maps for more than 30 percent of the
    CBRS acreage. Congress has adopted a subset of these maps, covering 9
    percent of the CBRS (including most of the maps produced under the 2016
    pilot project), through the Strengthening Coastal Communities Act of
    2018 (Pub. L. 115-358) and other technical correction legislation. The
    Service has also digitized (but not comprehensively revised) the
    remaining CBRS maps through the statutorily directed 5-year review that
    accounts for natural changes affecting coastal barriers in the CBRS
    such as erosion and accretion. There remains much work to do to
    comprehensively revise the CBRS maps. However, the collaboration
    between Congress and the Service, and the involvement of the public,
    has helped bring the maps into the modern age, making them more
    accurate and user-friendly and ensuring the long-term integrity of the
    CBRS.
    H.R. 5490, Bolstering Ecosystems Against Coastal Harm Act

        The Bolstering Ecosystems Against Coastal Harm Act (BEACH Act)
    would reauthorize CBRA and adopt comprehensively revised maps prepared
    by the Service for more than 450 CBRS units, including those maps
    prepared through the Hurricane Sandy Remapping Project and other
    technical correction reviews. This action would correct past mapping
    errors, including removing hundreds of private properties from the CBRS
    that, according to the Service's objective review, should not have been
    included in the CBRS. Adopting these maps would also add areas to the
    CBRS, reducing development pressure in coastal barrier habitats. This,
    in turn, would serve to conserve natural storm buffers and maintain
    habitat for many at-risk species of fish and wildlife. The bill would
    also require the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to establish a
    disclosure requirement for real estate transactions, require all
    affected agencies to revise or issue regulations and guidance as
    necessary to ensure compliance with the updated Act, and make many
    other minor and technical clarifications to the law. The Administration
    supports H.R. 5490 with some recommended changes, as outlined below,
    and looks forward to working with the Subcommittee to clarify a
    provision related to Otherwise Protected Areas (OPAs).
    Title I--Coastal Barrier Resources Act amendments

        The Administration supports the reauthorization of CBRA and the
    expansion of the CBRS, which will help to reduce future losses by
    keeping people and infrastructure out of harm's way, while also
    creating climate-resilient landscapes to conserve habitat for fish and
    wildlife. While the BEACH Act takes important steps, in light of the
    ever-increasing federal costs to supporting coastal development, the
    Administration recommends additional amendments to: (1) revise the
    definition of a ``coastal barrier'' to include areas that are and will
    be vulnerable to coastal hazards, such as flooding, storm surge, wind,
    erosion, and sea level rise; (2) assess the application of CBRA to
    certain high hazard coastal areas along the coasts through a pilot
    project; and (3) allow for adequate funding for the Service to fully
    carry out its mandates under CBRA. The Service would also welcome the
    opportunity to work with the Subcommittee and sponsor on certain
    additional aspects of the legislation, including definitions.
        Rising sea levels are exacerbating existing vulnerabilities,
    exposing more coastal areas to chronic erosion, nuisance flooding, and
    higher storm surges. This will cause emergency response and recovery
    costs to skyrocket over the coming decades. Tropical storms are being
    supercharged by record-high ocean temperatures caused by climate
    change. Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria all made landfall in the
    U.S. as category four hurricanes within a 4-week span in 2017. By the
    end of that year, the unprecedented hurricane season had resulted in
    more than $383 billion in damage.\5\ Additional destructive storms have
    caused hundreds of billions in damage since. In a 2019 report on
    climate resilience, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) stated
    that ``enhancing climate resilience means taking actions to reduce
    potential future losses by planning and preparing for potential climate
    hazards . . .'' \6\ We recommend that the Subcommittee consider making
    further updates to the law to ensure consideration of the increasing
    coastal hazards associated with climate change and reduce U.S.
    taxpayers' financial exposure to these hazards. Taxpayers should not be
    on the hook to provide federal financial incentives to unwisely build
    in risky areas.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ ``U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters,'' National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Centers for
    Environmental Information (NCEI), 2023, accessed August 29, 2023,
    https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions, DOI: https://www.doi.org/
    10.25921/stkw-7w73.
        \6\ Government Accountability Office (GAO), Climate Resilience: A
    Strategic Investment Approach for High-Priority Projects Could Help
    Target Federal Resources, GAO-20-127 (Washington, DC.: U.S. Government
    Printing Office, 2019), 3, accessed August 29, 2023, https://
    www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-127.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To position the law to address current and future conditions, the
    Administration recommends that CBRA be amended to enable the Service to
    conduct a pilot project, in consultation with the Corps of Engineers,
    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and State coastal
    zone management agencies, to examine application of the free market
    CBRA approach to certain high hazard coastal areas that are not
    currently a part of the CBRS. The purpose of this project is to better
    address coastal hazards that are increasing, such as sea level rise and
    storm surge. In the pilot project, the Service would examine including
    within the CBRS certain vulnerable coastal areas, including coastal
    mainland areas, and submit to Congress proposed definitions and
    criteria and a subset of draft maps delineating those areas. This pilot
    project could lead to future Congressional action to comprehensively
    assess and identify such areas and add them to the CBRS under certain
    conditions. This could be a key step for the nation to enhance coastal
    resilience for the longer term.
        The Administration supports Section 103 of the bill, which would
    require the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Housing
    and Urban Development, to issue regulations requiring the owner or
    lessor of real property in communities affected by CBRA to disclose the
    fact that the property is in a community affected by CBRA. Such a
    disclosure requirement will significantly increase awareness of CBRA at
    the time of real estate transactions. A CBRS designation can limit the
    availability of federal flood insurance and other federal subsidies.
    When prospective buyers are not aware of a property's inclusion in the
    CBRS, they are unable to make informed decisions.
        Additionally, the Administration supports the provision in Section
    104 of the bill that grandfathers existing insurable structures in
    areas newly added to the System by this and future bills, allowing
    those existing structures to maintain access to federal programs. This
    provision (which is broader than the grandfathering policy for
    structures added to the CBRS in the past) will allow the approximately
    90 privately-owned structures on the ground now in the recommended
    additions to retain their eligibility for a variety of federal programs
    such as flood insurance and disaster assistance. This provision also
    accounts for the fact that there may be structures currently under
    construction within the areas recommended for addition to the CBRS by
    grandfathering any structure completed within one year of enactment of
    this bill (when the restrictions on new federal funding and financial
    assistance go into effect).
        However, the Administration has significant concerns regarding part
    of Section 104 of the bill that, as currently written, exempts OPAs
    from all prohibitions on federal expenditures and financial assistance,
    which would include flood insurance. We note that OPAs do in many cases
    contain private inholdings and other private lands. Current law
    prohibits new federal flood insurance for any structure within an OPA
    that is not used in a manner consistent with the purpose for which the
    area is protected. For example, private residences built within an OPA
    after the unit's designation are not eligible for flood insurance, but
    park-related structures (e.g., a visitor center) are eligible. We look
    forward to working with the Subcommittee on technical changes to the
    bill to maintain existing flood insurance restrictions within OPAs, as
    well as the exemption for structures used in a manner consistent with
    the purpose for which the area is protected.
        Finally, the Administration suggests that the authorization level
    in Section 106 be increased to $5,000,000. The increased authorization
    level will allow the Service to increase its capacity to maintain and
    update the maps, improve public awareness of CBRA, engage in
    consultation with other federal agencies and update implementing
    regulations to align with the BEACH Act, and conduct a pilot project to
    better address increasing coastal hazards.
    Title II--Changes to John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System
            maps

        The BEACH Act would adopt all maps developed through the Hurricane
    Sandy Remapping Project, as well as revised maps for certain CBRS units
    in Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and North Carolina.
    Congressional adoption of these maps, which were produced by the
    Service, will help enhance coastal resilience by providing more
    accurate and accessible CBRS data for planning coastal infrastructure
    projects, habitat conservation efforts, and flood risk mitigation
    measures. Adoption of the revised maps will also correct decades-old
    mapping errors affecting more than 950 homes and other structures, and
    will also add hundreds of thousands of acres of relatively undeveloped
    areas that qualify for inclusion within the CBRS, consistent with
    Congressional direction in Pub. L. 109-226.
        It is important to note that the expansion of the CBRS will not
    prohibit or regulate new development; rather, it will send appropriate
    price signals to potential developers to convey the risk associated
    with building on dynamic coastal barriers and ensure that the federal
    taxpayer does not underwrite risky development. Additionally, to ensure
    that existing homeowners are not adversely affected, Section 104 of
    Title I of the bill, discussed above, would establish a grandfathering
    provision for existing insurable structures in any areas added to the
    CBRS by this or future bills.
        The Administration supports the adoption of these maps through this
    bill. However, we note that the maps were produced between 2016 and
    2020, using the best available data and aerial imagery at the time.
    Because development conditions on the ground are continually changing
    and coastal barriers are dynamic landforms, the Service recently
    conducted a review of the maps referenced in Title II and found that
    some minor and technical updates (none of which are new additions) are
    warranted to certain maps before they are adopted into law. We look
    forward to working with the Subcommittee on relevant updates.
        We also note that the Service has prepared revised maps for eight
    units in Alabama and North Carolina, transmitted to Congress in 2015
    and 2016 respectively, that are not included in the draft bill. These
    maps would correct mapping errors affecting property owners or add
    eligible areas to the CBRS. The Administration recommends that Congress
    adopt all of the final recommended maps that have been completed and
    transmitted to Congress since 2015.
    H.R. 2437, To revise the boundaries of a unit of the John H. Chafee
            Coastal Barrier Resources System in Topsail, North Carolina,
            and for other purposes

        Unit L06 of the CBRS is in Onslow County, North Carolina, and
    includes much of the Town of North Topsail Beach. H.R. 2437 would
    require the Secretary of the Interior to prepare, within 30 days of
    enactment, a revised map for Unit L06 that removes from the CBRS
    certain areas serviced by infrastructure located along North Carolina
    Highway 210 and New River Inlet Road in 1982. The bill would also
    require that the Service consider these roads to meet the statutory
    infrastructure criteria used to evaluate changes to the CBRS
    boundaries. The designation of this unit has been thoroughly reviewed
    by the Service and Congress in the past. Congress has examined and
    affirmed the boundaries of Unit L06 through the adoption of revised
    maps in 1990 and, applying current technology, in 2018. The Service
    does not recommend any further substantial changes to the boundary, as
    they would be inconsistent with the objective mapping criteria that the
    Service equitably applies for any recommended map revisions. For these
    reasons, as explained in more detail below, the Administration opposes
    H.R. 2437.
        It appears that H.R. 2437 intends to remove much of the existing
    development within Unit L06 from the CBRS. Nearly all of this
    development occurred after the passage of CBRA, meaning various federal
    subsidies, including federal flood insurance, are not available within
    the unit. Property owners pursued this development without federal
    subsidies. We note that as written, it is not clear exactly which areas
    would be removed from the CBRS. For example, there are several
    developed areas within the unit that were not serviced by these roads
    at the time of designation (many homes are located along secondary
    roads that were not on the ground in 1982).
        The Department developed the original CBRS maps as directed by
    Congress to identify qualifying relatively undeveloped coastal barrier
    areas in 1982 following a years-long process involving reviews of
    aerial photography, on-the-ground inspections, several public
    information sessions, and two comment periods. When Congress first
    included Unit L06 within the CBRS with the enactment of CBRA, there
    were approximately 35 structures and a main road on the ground. We note
    that when L06 was first mapped, the Department was guided by CBRS
    designation criteria published in the Federal Register on August 16,
    1982, which stated that ``the presence on a coastal barrier of a single
    road . . . plus associated electric transmission and water and sewer
    lines in this highway corridor does not constitute the necessary full
    complement of infrastructure necessary to support development.''
        After L06 was designated by CBRA in 1982, in 1983, developers and
    landowners filed a lawsuit against the Department and the Federal
    Emergency Management Agency over the designation of Unit L06. The
    District Court decided in favor of the Federal Government in 1984; it
    found that Congress' designation including the area within the CBRS was
    rationally related to the goals of the CBRA. The case was appealed, and
    the lower court's decision was upheld in 1985.
        As part of a CBRA reauthorization effort, all the CBRS units,
    including Unit L06, were reviewed again by the Department in the mid-
    1980s. Part of that review included public comment periods held in 1985
    and 1987. Congress then reaffirmed and expanded Unit L06 in 1990 when
    it reauthorized CBRA. Construction continued in the area without
    federal financial assistance in accordance with the free-market
    principles of the Act. The unit currently contains approximately 700
    structures, about 95 percent of which were built since the area was
    designated. Today, more than four decades after its initial
    designation, Unit L06 is one of the most developed units in the System,
    and CBRA continues to shield the American taxpayers from subsidizing
    construction on dynamic and low-lying barrier islands as Congress
    intended when it enacted CBRA.
        The Service comprehensively reviewed this area in response to
    requests received over the years from private property owners, local
    officials, and others who sought significant removals from Unit L06. We
    prepared revised maps for Unit L06 as part of the pilot project, which
    underwent public review in 2009. Our review found that, although there
    were some structures on the ground and a main trunk line of
    infrastructure that ran along the length of the unit in 1982, the area
    still met the CBRA criteria for an undeveloped coastal barrier when it
    was included within the CBRS. This review was summarized in our 2014
    testimony before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and
    Insular Affairs on H.R. 187, and is also described on pages E-8 and E-9
    of Appendix E of our 2016 Final Report to Congress: John H. Chafee
    Coastal Barrier Resources System Digital Mapping Pilot Project. The
    Service's comprehensive review was the basis for revised Unit L06 maps
    (two maps) that were part of the pilot project that was finalized and
    transmitted to Congress in 2016. These two maps were then adopted by
    Congress via the Strengthening Coastal Communities Act of 2018 (Pub. L.
    115-358) and signed into law by President Trump on December 21, 2018.
    These maps made appropriate technical corrections to address mapping
    errors (removing about 78 structures from the CBRS) and added
    approximately 170 qualifying acres to the CBRS (mostly wetlands).
        CBRA's legislative history states that ``it is in the intent of
    this legislation that those who choose to develop within the CBRS after
    enactment do so at their own risk. Recommending changes to such units
    for this purpose would obviously not be consistent with the intent of
    this legislation'' (House Report 97-841 Part 1). We note that any
    significant removal from Unit L06 could serve to incentivize further
    development and redevelopment, putting more people in harm's way and
    costing the federal taxpayer millions in future federal flood insurance
    and disaster assistance payouts.
        The Service does support the adoption of a revised map that we
    produced dated April 30, 2021, which is included in Title II of H.R.
    5490. The map included in H.R. 5490 would correct one minor and
    technical error in the map for Unit L06, removing about 2.5 acres and
    two homes from the CBRS if adopted by Congress. We discovered this
    error in 2020 after being asked to review the mapping of a specific
    property. This error was primarily the result of challenges in
    georeferencing the original CBRS maps, combined with the quality of
    aerial imagery available to the Service in the early 2000s, when the
    boundary for Unit L06 was first digitized from the 1990 paper maps. We
    have determined that no further changes to the boundaries of Unit L06
    are warranted.
    Conclusion

        The Service appreciates our long partnership with the Subcommittee
    in administering CBRA. Through our collaboration, we have saved the
    taxpayers billions of dollars, modernized the maps of the CBRS and made
    them more accessible to the public, maintained the integrity of the
    CBRS, and advanced the conservation of coastal habitat. The health of
    our coastal ecosystems is central to the continued existence of many
    species of fish and wildlife, and the Service is committed to
    conserving these important resources for the continuing benefit of the
    American people. We look forward to discussing these views with the
    Subcommittee and the bills' sponsors.

                                     ______

      Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Matthew Strickler, Deputy
    Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the
                                    Interior

    Mr. Strickler did not submit responses to the Committee by the
    appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

                  Questions Submitted by Representative Murphy
        Question 1. Would Mr. Strickler be willing to meet with Alderman
    Tom Leonard at North Topsail Beach to survey the 590 acres of land that
    H.R. 2437 would take out of CBRS zone known as Unit L06?

                                     ______

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Strickler. I now recognize Dr.
    Hein for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER HEIN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, VIRGINIA
        INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE, GLOUCESTER POINT, VIRGINIA

        Dr. Hein. Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member
    Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for
    allowing me the opportunity to testify today.
        I am an Associate Professor at the Virginia Institute of
    Marine Science in William and Mary. I am also a coastal
    geoscientist, which means my job is to study beaches, how they
    grow, how they erode, how they respond to storms and sea level
    rise. But beyond that, my expertise extends to the nearshore
    sand dunes, wetlands, and lagoons that are all part of what we
    call the Coastal Barrier Island System. I have studied coastal
    barriers across the U.S. East Coast, and from the Arctic to the
    Southern Hemisphere subtropics. For the last decade, most of
    that work has been in Representative Kiggans' district on
    Virginia's Eastern Shore.
        The reason us in the scientific community are so drawn to
    barriers is simple: they are nearly ubiquitous across the U.S.
    East and Gulf Coasts, and they are one of the most dynamic
    landforms on Earth. They are constantly changing and reshaping
    in response to winds, waves, and currents. One can never visit
    the same barrier twice, as with every new tide or every next
    storm they will have changed in ways both subtle and profound.
        Here I share with you a little about the Virginia Barrier
    Islands as a way of exemplifying the importance of Coastal
    Barrier Systems and the benefits of disincentivizing their
    development through measures such as the BEACH Act.
        The island chain stretching from southern Delaware to the
    mouth of the Chesapeake Bay is one of the longest expanses of
    nearly entirely undeveloped barriers in the world, home to
    wildlife refuges, national seashore, state parks, and a nature
    conservancy preserve. These islands and their associated waters
    and wetlands are a conservation jewel. And it is the fact that
    they are largely undeveloped that makes these barrier systems
    just so profoundly important to the health and security of
    nearby coastal communities and ecosystems.
        One way in which they do so is serving as speed bumps to
    storms approaching the coast, storms such as Hurricane Sandy in
    2012 or Tropical Storm Ophelia, which struck the Mid-Atlantic
    just this past weekend. Although such storms can be devastating
    to communities and infrastructure built upon the barriers, the
    physical landforms and the ecosystems themselves, they are
    fully adapted to the waves, winds, and flooding. Dune and beach
    configurations may change as waters rise and fall. Sediment is
    moved from the beach and dunes to the rear of the barrier, and
    tidal currents can carve new inlets, but the natural system
    persists and recovers.
        This process is, in fact, healthy and is, indeed, central
    to the future resilience of coastal barriers and the lands that
    they protect. And this is exactly what we witness along
    Virginia's Eastern Shore. Here, barriers have been moving
    landward at nearly 20 feet per year for over a century
    unimpeded by seawalls, by homes, or grocery stores. With the
    rare exception, they receive no costly beach nourishment and
    have no cement or rock walls preventing their movement. Yet,
    these islands, they remain miles offshore, where they provide
    habitat, nesting, and feeding grounds for over 250 species of
    raptors, shorebirds, and songbirds. And they sit in front of
    more than 100,000 acres of marshes and wetlands, which are host
    to oyster reef sanctuaries and the largest expanse of restored
    eelgrass in the world, which together support shellfish
    aquaculture and fisheries industries worth tens of millions of
    dollars annually.
        These barriers, they take the brunt of storms, leaving
    behind them relatively quiet water, even in the worst of
    weather. In doing so, they protect the mainland communities of
    the Eastern Shore. Barriers slow water entering adjacent
    lagoons and protect marshes, which themselves further reduce
    wave energy and absorb flood floodwaters. In fact, marshes are
    estimated to reduce annual storm damage by about $23 billion
    nationally. Indeed, the back barrier wetlands of New York and
    New Jersey likely reduced property damage from Hurricane Sandy
    by nearly $600 million.
        And what makes the coastal barriers such as those along
    Virginia's Eastern Shore so indispensable is that they are not
    built upon. By disincentivizing development of lands within the
    Coastal Barrier Resources System, CBRA, with its network
    improved and expanded through passage of the BEACH Act, not
    only saves taxpayer dollars, but allows remaining undeveloped
    barriers and wetlands to migrate and adapt naturally to sea
    level rise. And it ensures their continued functionality for
    supporting coastal economies, recreation, and tourism, for
    providing habitat and myriad ecosystem services, for protecting
    mainland communities and infrastructure, and offering vital
    opportunities for scientific research and education.
        On behalf of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
    William and Mary, the coastal scientific community, and the
    citizens of coastal Virginia, I am grateful for the
    Subcommittee's interest in expanding protections for these
    vital landforms based on the best available science, and
    welcome any questions.

        [The prepared statement of Dr. Hein follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Christopher Hein, Wakefield Associate Professor
    of Marine Science, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary
                                  on H.R. 5490

    Introduction

        Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members
    of the Subcommittee. I am a coastal geoscientist and associate
    professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary.
    It is an honor to testify this morning on the importance of coastal
    barriers. These landforms and associated ecosystems are at the core of
    my scientific expertise: I have been studying their physical evolution,
    modern processes and dynamics, and sensitivities to projected increases
    in storminess and rates of sea-level rise for nearly 20 years. My
    research includes sites across the U.S. and beyond, including East
    Coast barriers from Maine to Florida, with an emphasis in the last
    decade on the largely undeveloped system of barrier islands of
    Virginia's Eastern Shore.
        My testimony serves to provide scientific background on coastal
    barrier systems, the buffer between the coastal ocean and mainland
    human population centers and infrastructure. These elongate, generally
    shore-parallel bodies of sand (barrier spits and islands) protect the
    mainland coast from coastal impacts of sea-level rise and devastating
    storms. Coastal barriers are found along 15% of the world's
    coastlines, and nearly the entire U.S. East and Gulf coasts; in fact,
    nearly a full quarter of the world's barriers islands are found within
    the United States, accounting for 6500 mi2 of land
    area.\1\,\2\ Together with their backbarrier estuaries,
    lagoons, tidal flats, and wetlands, coastal barriers serve as a natural
    storm buffer; include some of the most popular tourist and recreational
    destinations in the U.S.; provide habitat for a wide variety of
    wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, migratory
    waterfowl, and juveniles of recreationally and commercially important
    species; and sequester climate-altering carbon dioxide (CO2)
    in the form of organic-rich ``blue carbon'' reservoirs. In short, as
    noted in the 1982 Coastal Barrier Resources Act, coastal barriers
    ``contain extraordinary scenic, scientific, recreational, natural,
    historic, archeological, cultural, and economic importance.''
    Protection of these dynamic, yet sensitive, coastal systems yield
    immense ecosystem, societal, and economic benefits, both measurable and
    intangible.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Stutz, M.L. and Pilkey, O.H., 2011. Open-ocean barrier islands:
    global influence of climatic, oceanographic, and depositional settings.
    Journal of Coastal Research, v. 27, p. 207-222. https://doi.org/
    10.2112/09-1190.1.
        \2\ McNamara, D.E., & Lazarus, E.D., 2018. Barrier islands as
    coupled human-landscape systems, In: Moore, L.J., and Murray, A.B.,
    Barrier Dynamics and Response to Changing Climate, Springer, p. 363-
    383. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-68086-6_12
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Unique Role of Undeveloped Coastal Barriers

        The 1982 Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) defines undeveloped
    coastal barriers ``as:

      A.  a depositional geologic feature (such as a bay barrier, tombolo,
                barrier spit, or barrier island) that (i) consists of
                unconsolidated sedimentary materials; (ii) is subject to
                wave, tidal, and wind energies, and; (iii) protects
                landward aquatic habitats from direct wave attack; and

      B.  all associated aquatic habitats, including the adjacent wetlands,
                marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters;

    but only if such feature and associated habitats (i) contain few man-
    made structures and these structures, and man's activities on such
    feature and within such habitats, do not significantly impede
    geomorphic and ecological processes, and (ii) are not included within
    the boundaries of an area established under Federal, State, or local
    law, or held by a qualified organization as defined in section
    170(h)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, primarily for wildlife
    refuge, sanctuary, recreational, or natural resource conservation
    purposes.''

        These definitions largely follow those accepted within the
    scientific community. What is missing from this legal designation is
    the fact that coastal barriers are among the--if not the--most dynamic
    landforms on Earth. In their natural state, they are constantly
    undergoing reworking by waves, wind, and currents; they shape and
    reform in response to, and following, storm impacts; and, at any time,
    there are barriers undergoing long-term (decadal or longer) phases of
    progradation (widening), elongation, accretion, erosion (narrowing),
    breaching, or migration. Indeed, one can never visit the ``same''
    barrier twice, as the landform and its associated habitats are
    constantly adjusting to ever-changing conditions at the intersection of
    land, ocean, and atmosphere. It is this dynamism that makes undeveloped
    coastal barriers such environmental oases, and it is the resilience of
    these systems--their ability to ``regenerate'' following major storm
    impacts--that makes them so vital to the protection of mainland
    communities and infrastructure.
        Most barriers formed thousands of years ago, and often miles
    offshore of their present locations. Sea-level rise since that time has
    driven these landforms onshore, while during the same time the mainland
    behind them has flooded. This process of barrier rollover (landward
    migration) occurs largely through a process called ``overwash'', in
    which storm waves and surge overtop the barrier and transport its beach
    sand to the rear of the barrier and into the lagoon. It is this process
    through which these barriers (whether mainland-attached spits or
    offshore islands) maintain elevation above sea level. It is also what
    allows these coastal barriers to preserve and protect adjacent
    ecologically and economically rich backbarrier environments,
    characterized by extensive estuaries, lagoons, tidal flats, submersed
    aquatic vegetation, and intertidal wetlands (marshes and/or mangroves).
    However, this is just one of myriad services of coastal barriers and
    their associated backbarrier systems--particularly those which are
    undeveloped and allowed to naturally adapt to changing atmospheric and
    oceanographic forcings.
    Coastal Barriers Provide Protection to Mainland Communities and
            Infrastructure

        In the U.S., approximately 40% of the population lives in coastal
    counties,\3\ and there are 180 coastal municipalities along the coasts
    of the continental U.S. with populations of >50,000 and land areas with
    elevations at or below about 20 ft above mean sea level.\4\
    Infrastructure within the coastal zone totals $3 trillion along the
    East and Gulf Coasts alone. Total insured property values for coastal
    states exceed $10 trillion.\5\ And globally, many of the densest
    coastal population centers are within the world's six ``hurricane
    belts'', with that spanning the U.S. East and Gulf Coast having
    experienced the highest economic losses in the world due to storms.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office for
    Coastal Management (NOAA-OCM), 2023. Fast Facts: Natural
    Infrastructure. https://coast.noaa.gov/states/fast-facts/natural-
    infrastructure.html accessed 24 September 2023.
        \4\ Weiss, J.L., Overpeck, J.T. and Strauss, B., 2011. Implications
    of recent sea level rise science for low-elevation areas in coastal
    cities of the conterminous USA, Climatic Change, v. 105, p. 635-645.
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0024-x.
        \5\ Insurance Journal, 2013. Insured Property Values in Coastal
    States Top $10 Trillion; Florida Has Most at Risk; Miami Ranks 2nd
    Among Metros, online 17 June 2013, accessed 24 September 2023. https://
    www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/features/2013/06/17/295207.htm
        \6\ Martinez, M.L., Costanza, R. and Perez-Maqueo, O., 2011.
    Ecosystem services provided by estuarine and coastal ecosystems: Storm
    Protection as a service from estuarine and coastal ecosystems. In:
    Wolanski, E., McLusky, D., Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal Science,
    Academic Press, p. 129-146, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374711-
    2.01207-9.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Coastal barriers and their associated backbarrier lagoons and
    wetlands serve as a ``speed bump'' to storms as they approach the
    coast--storms such as Hurricane Sandy in October 2012, or Tropical
    Storm Ophelia, which struck the Mid-Atlantic coast just this past
    weekend. It was the devastation of Hurricane Sandy that initiated the
    process of modernizing the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS)
    (first established by the 1982 CBRA) along much of the U.S. East Coast
    through funding provided by the January 2013 Disaster Relief
    Appropriations Act (Public Law 113-2); these updated maps and
    recommendations were presented in a comprehensive 2022 Report to
    Congress authored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Hatch, K., Niemi, K., Wright, D., 2022. Report to Congress:
    John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Hurricane Sandy
    Remapping Project, Washington, DC.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    (USFWS), 156 p. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
    Hurricane-Sandy-CBRS-Remapping-Report-to-Congress-2022_0.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Some of the worst damage from Hurricane Sandy (2012) was along the
    coastal barriers that front the mainlands of New Jersey and New York.
    However, the impacts were not to the physical system of sand, mud,
    water, and wetlands that comprise the barrier systems: those are
    resilient; configurations may change as flood waters rise and fall,
    waves move sediment across the system, and tidal currents carve inlets,
    but the natural system persists. Undeveloped coastal barrier systems
    function under the rules of physics. Rather, the risk from these storm
    impacts lies at the intersection with human communities and
    infrastructure. And this is where coastal barriers and their associated
    backbarrier aquatic habitats play an indispensable role in mainland
    protection.
        Coastal barriers and beaches bear the brunt of ocean storm waves
    during hurricanes and nor'easters, leaving only small, locally formed
    wind waves in backbarrier lagoons. Barriers greatly decrease wave
    heights, protecting mainland communities and reducing erosion of
    mainland and backbarrier marshes. By providing only narrow openings
    through which water can flow (tidal inlets), coastal barriers
    substantially retard the volume of water flooding adjacent
    backbarriers, reducing storm surge and attendant mainland flooding.
    Further, these coastal barriers support the presence of coastal
    wetlands, which themselves reduce wave energy and absorb floodwaters:
    they are estimated to hold an annual average storm-protective services
    value of $4.6 million/mi2 (nationwide, $23 billion/year;
    ref. 3), with higher protective benefits in states with weaker building
    codes.\8\ To wit, it is estimated that backbarrier wetlands reduced
    property damage from Hurricane Sandy by $567 million in New York and
    New Jersey alone.\9\ The benefits were smaller but still profound
    distant from the epicenter of the storm's landfall. In Members Kiggans'
    and Wittman's homes of coastal Virginia, the protective value of
    wetlands (not all located behind barrier islands) from Hurricane Sandy
    is estimated at $10 million; and in Member Magaziner's district in
    Rhode Island, the value is $300,000.9
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Sun, F. and Carson, R.T., 2020. Coastal wetlands reduce
    property damage during tropical cyclones. Proceedings of the National
    Academy of Sciences, v. 117, p. 5719-5725. https://doi.org/10.1073/
    pnas.1915169117
        \9\ Narayan, S., Beck, M.W., Wilson, P., et al., 2017. The value of
    coastal wetlands for flood damage reduction in the northeastern USA.
    Scientific Reports, v. 7, p. 9463. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-
    09269-z.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Coastal Barriers Provide `Ecosystem Services'

        Beyond protective benefits for backbarrier and mainland
    communities, undeveloped coastal barriers provide and protect important
    habitats that sustain threatened and endangered species and maintain
    recreational and commercial fisheries. By intercepting dissolved and
    particulate matter from land and ocean, vegetation associated with
    coastal barrier beach and dunes acts as natural biofilters and support
    the breakdown of organic materials and pollutants. Those same dunes can
    temporarily store storm water. Beach and dune sands provide habitat
    that supports unique and diverse micro-, meso-, and macrofaunal
    communities including significant habitat and nesting sites for
    pinnipeds, sea turtles, shorebirds (including the endangered piping
    plover), and songbirds; and enhances species richness and diversity. In
    addition, coastal barriers protect wetlands and submersed aquatic
    vegetation beds that in turn serve as long-term carbon storage
    reservoirs, provide food resources to a wide variety of wildlife,
    including threatened and endangered species, migratory waterfowl, while
    at the same time serve as nursery habitat for larvae and juveniles of
    economically important species, such as bait and commercial fishes.
    A Contrast with Developed Barriers

        With 2.3 billion tourists visiting annually, beaches (including
    those on coastal barriers) are the most popular tourist and
    recreational destinations in the country, contributing $357 billion
    (in 2023 USD) annually to the U.S. economy. Coastal states such as
    Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Oregon, Rhode
    Island, and Virginia receive 85% of annual tourism-related revenues in
    the U.S., supporting 2.5 million jobs and generating $45 billion in
    taxes.\10\ However, coastal erosion--largely associated with storm
    impacts--affects 85-90% of beaches in the U.S.\11\ and is responsible
    for >$500 million per year in property damage, including land losses
    and structure impairments.\12\ To counter this, developed barriers and
    beaches have received 3600 sand nourishment projects, totaling 1.7
    trillion cubic yards, and at a cost of nearly $9 billion (91% since
    1960).\13\ The vast majority (>83%) of these projects have been to
    beaches in California, Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina, New York,
    and Louisiana. Combined with hard and soft engineering approaches
    (e.g., installation of seawalls, groins, jetties, breakwaters, etc.),
    this approach has largely prevented the natural landward movement of
    developed barriers towards the mainland, and migration of coastal
    wetlands onto uplands in response to sea-level rise. In fact, in many
    places, such as the New Jersey Shore, barriers have experienced net
    progradation (growth) in recent decades, because of repeated
    nourishments and shoreline hardening.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Houston, J.R., 2018. The economic value of America's beaches--
    A 2018 update, Shore & Beach, v. 86, p. 3-13. https://asbpa.org/wp-
    content/uploads/2018/05/Houston_Spring-2018_86_2_color.pdf
        \11\ Heinz Center, 2000. Evaluation of Erosion Hazards. The H. John
    Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, 253 p.
    https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/erosion.pdf
        \12\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2013.
    National Coastal Population Report, Washington, DC.: Department of
    Commerce, 22 p., https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/training/
    population-report.html.
        \13\ Elko, N., Briggs, T.R., Benedet, L., et al, 2021. A century of
    US beach nourishment. Ocean & Coastal Management, v. 199, p. 105406.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105406
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        However, these shoreline-stabilization activities are racked with
    problems, ranging from ecological impacts to ever-increasing costs of a
    finite resource (sand), to racial and wealth inequities in application.
    For example, development disrupts the connection between barriers and
    their adjacent lagoons and wetlands, interrupting the natural, storm-
    induced landward transfer of sand that helps to sustain wetlands in the
    face of sea-level rise. Shoreline stabilization has been shown to
    further promote larger and more extensive development.\14\ And, over
    the long term, activities required to support continued development and
    occupation of coastal barriers leave the barriers vulnerable to
    wholesale drowning and deterioration.\15\ None of these challenges
    exist for undeveloped coastal barriers. Indeed, in addition to placing
    communities and infrastructure at risk, development on coastal barriers
    can remove many of the protective, economic, and ecosystem values of
    coastal barriers.\16\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Armstrong, S.B., Lazarus, E.D., Limber, P.W., et al., 2016.
    Indications of a positive feedback between coastal development and
    beach nourishment. Earth's Future, v. 4, p. 626-635. https://doi.org/
    10.1002/2016EF000425.
        \15\ Miselis, J.L. and Lorenzo-Trueba, J., 2017. Natural and human-
    induced variability in barrier-island response to sea level rise.
    Geophysical Research Letters, v. 44, p. 11,922-11,931. https://doi.org/
    10.1002/2017GL074811.
        \16\ Feagin, R.A., Smith, W.K., Psuty, N.P., et al., 2010. Barrier
    islands: coupling anthropogenic stability with ecological
    sustainability. Journal of Coastal Research, v. 26, p. 987-992. https:/
    /doi.org/10.2112/09-1185.1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An Example from Virginia's Undeveloped Barrier Islands

        Along the 70-mile-long seaside of the Eastern Shore of Virginia
    (located within Representative Kiggans' 2nd Congressional District)
    lies 13 largely pristine, undeveloped barrier islands. Only one of the
    ocean-facing islands has experienced any significant development:
    Wallops Island, home to the NASA Wallops Flight Facility, the Virginia
    Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport, and the Navy's Surface Combat Systems
    Center. Approximately 215 mi2 (including >68 mi of
    beachfront) of these coastal barrier systems are protected from
    development by state and federal agencies and non-governmental
    organizations. These islands are home to The Nature Conservancy's
    Virginia Coast Reserve; a National Science Foundation Long-Term
    Ecological Research site; the Assateague National Seashore; and
    National Wildlife Refuges on Wallops, Assawoman, Chincoteague, and
    Fisherman islands.
        These islands, along with the lagoons, wetlands, and mainland
    Eastern Shore they support and protect contain $14 billion in coastal
    infrastructure and $15 million/yr shellfish aquaculture and fisheries
    industries.\17\ The total annual spending associated with tourism at
    the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge (largely located on the
    undeveloped Assateague Island) is estimated at $315 million, supporting
    3766 jobs.\18\ The local clam aquaculture industry exceeds $61 million/
    year and supports nearly 700 jobs.\19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission (A-NPDC),
    2015. Commercial and Recreational Use Assessment Report--Seaside of
    Virginia's Eastern Shore, 82 p. https://www.esvaplan.org/wp-content/
    uploads/2022/03/2013-Recreational-Use-Assessment-Report-ANPDC.pdf
        \18\ Clower, T.L., and Bellas, D.D., 2017. Socio-economic Impacts
    of Conserved Land on Virginia's Eastern Shore, Center for Regional
    Analysis, George Mason University; Urban Analytics, Inc., 99 p. https:/
    /www.dcr.virginia.gov/land-conservation/document/lc-es-econ-imp-
    2014.pdf
        \19\ Murray, T.J., 2014. Economic Activity Associated with
    Commercial Fisheries and Shellfish Aquaculture in Northampton County,
    Virginia, VIMS Marine Resource Report No. 2014-12, Gloucester Point,
    VA: Virginia Sea Grant, Communications, Virginia Institute of Marine
    Science, 12 p. https://www.vims.edu/research/units/centerspartners/map/
    _docs/docs_aqua/MRR 2014_12.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The undeveloped coastal barriers of the Virginia Eastern Shore
    provide ample protective and ecological benefits to the communities,
    ecosystems, and economy of the Eastern Shore. As one of the last
    remaining expanses of coastal wilderness on the Atlantic, the coastal
    barriers of the Eastern Shore are a conservation and restoration jewel.
    This region boasts recognition as a United Nations International
    Biosphere Reserve, a U.S. Department of the Interior National Natural
    Landmark, a Western Hemisphere International Shorebird Reserve Network
    Site, and an Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Focus Area. The islands
    themselves provide habitat, nesting, and feeding grounds to over 250
    species of raptors, shorebirds, and songbirds.\20\ The adjacent lagoons
    are host to approximately 60 acres of restored oyster reef; 2000 acres
    of oyster reef sanctuaries; 5000 acres of restored eelgrass meadows
    (the largest seagrass restoration project in the world); and the
    reintroduced bay scallop. Additionally, saltmarshes and seagrass beds
    protected by the fronting barriers reduce the volume of water moving
    towards the mainland by up to 15% during normal tidal cycles, and more
    during storms.\21\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ The Nature Conservancy (TNC), 2023. Places We Protect: VVCR
    Barrier Islands, Virginia. accessed 23 September 2023. https://
    www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/places-we-protect/vcr-
    barrier-islands/.
        \21\ Nardin, W., Larsen, L., Fagherazzi, S., and Wiberg, P., 2018.
    Tradeoffs among hydrodynamics, sediment fluxes and vegetation community
    in the Virginia Coast Reserve, USA, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf
    Science, v. 210, p. 98-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2018.06.009
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The protective, economic, and ecosystem value of the Virginia
    Barrier Islands is owed largely to the fact that they are undeveloped.
    These barriers move landward at rates of >20 feet/year, largely in
    response to storm-driven overwash. The cost to taxpayers of this
    dynamic movement? Next to nothing. Along heavily developed barriers of
    large portions of the New Jersey, North Carolina, Florida, and Gulf
    coasts, storm impacts flood islands and work to move them landward,
    creating a problematic and deeply costly scenario for the populations
    and infrastructure of those islands. In contrast, the wind, waves, and
    floodwaters that strike the Virginia Barrier Islands are felt only by
    the sand and vegetation of those islands (in most cases): the islands
    move and adapt, receiving the brunt of the storm and protecting the
    mainland and ecosystems landward of the islands. This allows these
    undeveloped coastal barriers and the ecosystems they support to remain
    conservation jewels, with benefits for the citizens of the Commonwealth
    today and into the future.
    The Future of Coastal Barriers: Expanding the Coastal Barrier Resources
            System through the BEACH Act

        Human-induced climate change presents an immediate threat to
    coastal communities worldwide. As a result, the value of the protective
    services of barriers and associated wetlands is projected to increase
    with accelerating climate change and growing development pressures. The
    threat to coastal systems and communities grows annually not only
    because increasing of accelerating rates of sea-level rise and
    increases in storm frequency and intensity, but also because of
    increasing population density and coastal infrastructure placed within
    high-risk coastal zones. For example, between 1970 and 2010, coastal
    shoreline counties added 3.5 times more people per square mile than the
    nation as a whole.12 Along the U.S. East Coast, these new
    residents are challenged with some of the highest rates of sea-level
    rise in the country; in the Mid-Atlantic specifically, they are more
    than twice the global average, already leading to widespread ``sunny
    day'' and recurrent nuisance flooding. Coupled with hurricanes and
    nor'easters, these impacts are likely to cost billions of dollars in
    property damage in the U.S. by mid-century, with accelerated risk in
    the Mid-Atlantic.\22\ The threats are widespread, including to
    developed coastlines, built infrastructure and hardened landscapes,
    agricultural lands and forest ecosystems, and groundwater resources.
    Importantly, many of these changes will occur irrespective of the
    unlikely immediate reduction in CO2 emissions that is
    required to slow the pace of climate change. For example, Mariotti &
    Hein \23\ found that undeveloped barriers are primed for rapid
    migration, even in the highly improbable case in which sea levels
    stabilize at current elevations. The case is more dire along developed
    coasts, where stabilization of many open-ocean beaches as well as
    upland coastal margins (e.g., marsh-forest boundaries) will
    fundamentally impact coastal ecosystem size and functionality, leading
    to reduced and deteriorating coastal habitats and attendant protective
    and ecosystem services.\24\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ Neumann, B., Vafeidis, A.T., Zimmermann, J. and Nicholls,
    R.J., 2015. Future coastal population growth and exposure to sea-level
    rise and coastal flooding-a global assessment. PloS One, v. 10, p.
    e0118571. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131375.
        \23\ Mariotti, G., Hein, C.J., 2022. Lag in response of coastal
    barrier-island retreat to sea-level rise, Nature Geoscience, v. 15, p.
    633-638. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-022-00980-9
        \24\ Hein, C.J. and Kirwan, M.L., 2024. Marine transgression in
    modern times, Annual Reviews of Marine Science, v. 16, in press.
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-022123-103802
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The CBRA established the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS),
    encompassing 3.5 million acres along the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico,
    Great Lakes, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico coasts. The CBRA
    established a ``program of coordinated action by Federal, State, and
    local governments . . . critical to the more appropriate use and
    conservation of coastal barriers.'' As a result of this Act,
    development rates and densities of hazard-prone coastal areas
    substantially decreased,\25\ and 97% of all CBRS units remained
    undeveloped or have experienced minimal development,\26\ allowing them
    to continue to serve their full potential for coastal protection and
    habitat. Further, federal expenditures associated with coastal
    disasters were decreased by $9.5 billion, and forecasts are that--
    without any substantial changes to the CBRS system--the fiscal benefits
    of the CBRA over the next 50 years will be more than ten times greater
    than historical benefits: depending on land development patterns and
    rates and storm impacts, the CBRA is likely to contribute between $8.6
    and $63 billion in disaster-relief savings by 2048, and between $11 and
    $109 billion by 2068.\27\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ Onda, K., Branham, J., BenDor, T.K., et al, 2020. Does removal
    of federal subsidies discourage urban development? An evaluation of the
    US Coastal Barrier Resources Act. PloS one, 15(6), p.e0233888. https://
    doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233888.
        \26\ GAO, 2007. Coastal Barrier Resources System: Status of
    Development that has Occurred and Financial Assistance Provided by
    Federal Agencies, Washington, DC.: U.S. Government Accountability
    Office (GAO), GAO-07-356, v. 10, accessed 24 September 2023. https://
    www.gao.gov/products/gao-07-356.
        \27\ Coburn, A.S. and Whitehead, J.C., 2019. An analysis of federal
    expenditures related to the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of
    1982. Journal of Coastal Research, v. 35, p. 1358-1361. https://
    doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-18-00114.1

        The Bolstering Ecosystems Against Coastal Harm (BEACH) Act seeks to
    give congressional approval to update the CBRA System using new and
    detailed mapping undertaken by the USFWS following Hurricane Sandy.
    Additionally, the bill makes improvements to CBRA that make it more
    transparent and flexible. As detailed in the USFWS report,7
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    these goals will be accomplished through:

         removal from the CBRS of 969 acres of land above mean tide
                (`fastland') and 392 acres of wetlands and open water that
                were apparently mistakenly included in the original Act.

         addition to the CBRS 11,102 acres of fastland and 266,848
                acres of associated aquatic habitat, including 3,240 acres
                of privately owned fastland.

         net reclassification of 28,956 acres from System Unit to
                `Otherwise Protected Area'.

        Together, these changes would add a net 276,589 acres to the CBRS,
    expanding it to a total of 846,918 acres of protected, largely
    undeveloped coastal barrier and wetlands. Doing so would allow for
    continued and expanded maintenance of coastal barrier systems, such as
    those along Virginia's Eastern Shore, in an undeveloped state. This
    will allow them to adapt naturally to sea-level rise and will help
    ensure their continued roles in supporting coastal economies,
    recreation, and tourism; providing habitat and myriad ecological
    services; protecting mainland communities and infrastructure; and
    offering vital opportunities for scientific research and education.
    Conclusion

        I have herein carefully limited my testimony to scientific facts:
    the myriad roles of coastal barriers and the increasing threats they
    face from climate changes. My intent is to lay out the tremendous
    protective, economic, and ecosystem benefits provided by coastal
    barriers and their associated estuaries, lagoons, tidal flats, and
    wetlands; services which the science is clear are enhanced through
    policies that allow those to remain in their most natural state. On
    behalf of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary, the
    coastal scientific community, and the citizens of coastal Virginia, I
    am grateful for the Subcommittee's interest in expanding protections
    for these vital landforms and ecosystems based on the best-available
    science from the USFWS, and welcome any questions or concerns.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Dr. Hein. I now recognize Mr. Lynn
    for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF STEVE LYNN, MANAGER, MIDVALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT,
                           PAVILLION, WYOMING

        Mr. Lynn. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member
    Huffman, and the members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the
    opportunity to provide testimony on H.R. 3415 to direct the
    Secretary of the Interior to convey to the Midvale Irrigation
    District the Pilot Butte Power Plant. It is my honor and
    pleasure to address you today.
        I am the Manager of the Midvale Irrigation District. We are
    located in Pavillion, Wyoming. The District was formed in 1921
    and is historically known as the Riverton Unit of the
    Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation. Major
    facilities in this unit are the Bull Lake Dam and Reservoir,
    Pilot Butte Dam and Reservoir, Wind River Diversion Dam, the
    Pilot Butte Power Plant, as well as 100 miles of main canals,
    300 miles of lateral canals, and approximately 650 miles of
    structured drains.
        Midvale is under contract with the Bureau of Reclamation to
    operate and maintain these transferred works. The District
    serves approximately 73,000 acres of irrigable lands with
    direct flow water from the Wind River and stored water from
    Bull Lake and Pilot Butte Reservoirs.
        The Pilot Butte Reservoir is an off-stream facility fed by
    the Wyoming Canal, approximately 10 miles downstream of the
    Wind River Diversion Dam. The reservoir supplies the Pilot
    Canal, which extends another 38.2 miles and irrigates the
    southern portion of the District.
        The Pilot Butte Power Plant is located at the drop from
    Wyoming Canal to Pilot Butte Reservoir. The plant began
    generating power in 1925, and has two generating units which
    operate under a maximum head of 105 feet, with a total capacity
    of 1,600 kilowatts. Power was distributed over 76 miles of
    transmission lines. The plant was shut down on June 15, 1973
    because of high operation and maintenance costs and penstock
    problems. The penstock was replaced and the units were placed
    back in service in June 1990, and continued through 2008.
    Following an economic analysis, the Bureau of Reclamation
    decided to shut down the power plant due to increasing
    operation and maintenance costs and needed plant repairs.
        The Midvale Irrigation District has been interested in
    hydropower generation for many years, and applied for a
    hydropower feasibility study through the Wyoming Water
    Development Commission. A Level II study, published in June
    2016 assessed the feasibility of developing hydropower on
    several of Midvale's drop structures, and also assessed the
    feasibility of Midvale rehabilitating and operating the Pilot
    Butte Power Plant. The recommendations of the report considered
    most all of the power generation and appurtenant equipment had
    exceeded its useful life and in need of replacement with modern
    power generating equipment.
        The Pilot Butte Power Plant is referred to by Reclamation
    as reserved works, meaning the facility and the appurtenant
    penstock and headgate are to be retained by Reclamation for its
    use in generating power income. The reserved works designation
    does not allow the facilities to be transferred by any other
    means but through an Act of Congress.
        As mentioned, the power plant has been shut down and
    mothballed since 2008, and a future plan for demolition was
    estimated by Reclamation at approximately $5 million several
    years ago.
        Additionally, Reclamation incurs mounting annual costs for
    maintenance and inspection of the facility, even as it sits
    idle.
        The Midvale Irrigation District recognizes the mounting
    costs of the facility to Reclamation, and is petitioning
    Congress to transfer the reserved works to the District for the
    opportunity to rehabilitate the building and purchase new
    equipment to produce hydroelectric power during its irrigation
    season, which is approximately 6 months of the year.
        Ultimately, the produced power would benefit the District's
    940 water users, and in keeping with the goal of providing the
    maximum amount of available water to the District's
    constituents at the lowest reasonable cost each year.
        The property the power plant and appurtenances are located
    on is managed by the Midvale Irrigation District for
    Reclamation and is eligible for title transfer through the
    Dingell Act as transferred works, but the reserved works are
    not.
        In closing, the Midvale Irrigation District is in support
    of the Pilot Butte Power Plant Conveyance Act, and asks that it
    be supported by the Subcommittee.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today,
    and I will gladly answer any questions the Subcommittee may
    have.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lynn follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Steve J. Lynn, District Manager, Midvale
                       Irrigation District, Pavillion, WY
                                  on H.R. 3415

        Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on H.R.
    3415 to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the Midvale
    Irrigation District the Pilot Butte Power Plant. It is my honor and
    pleasure to address you today.
        My name is Steve J. Lynn, District Manager of the Midvale
    Irrigation District, located in Pavillion, Wyoming. The District was
    formed in 1921 and historically known as the Riverton Unit of the
    Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Major facilities of
    this unit are Bull Lake Dam and Reservoir, Pilot Butte Dam and
    Reservoir, Wind River Diversion Dam, and Pilot Butte Power Plant as
    well as 100 miles of main canals, 300 miles of lateral canals and
    approximately 650 miles of drains. Midvale is under contract with the
    Bureau of Reclamation to operate and maintain these transferred works.
        The District serves approximately 73,000 acres of irrigable lands
    with direct flow water from the Wind River and stored water from Bull
    Lake and Pilot Butte Reservoirs.
        Pilot Butte Reservoir is an off-stream facility fed by the Wyoming
    Canal, approximately 10 miles downstream of the Wind River Diversion
    Dam. The reservoir supplies the Pilot Canal which extends 38.2 miles,
    and irrigates the southern portion of the District.
        The Pilot Butte Power Plant is located at the drop from the Wyoming
    Canal to Pilot Butte Reservoir. The plant began generating power in
    1925 and has two generating units which operate under a maximum head of
    105 feet with a total capacity of 1,600 kilowatts. Power was
    distributed over 76 miles of transmission lines. The plant was shut
    down on June 15, 1973, because of high operation and maintenance costs
    and penstock problems. The penstock was replaced, and the units were
    placed back in service in June 1990 and continued through 2008.
        Following an economic analysis, the Bureau of Reclamation decided
    to shut down the power plant due to increasing operation and
    maintenance costs and needed plant repairs.
        The Midvale Irrigation District has been interested in hydropower
    generation for many years and applied for a hydropower feasibility
    study through the Wyoming Water Development Commission. The Level II
    study published in June 2016 assessed the feasibility of developing
    hydropower on several of Midvale's drop structures and also assessed
    the feasibility of Midvale rehabilitating and operating the Pilot Butte
    Power Plant. The recommendations of the report considered most all of
    the power generation and appurtenant equipment had exceeded its useful
    life, and in need of replacement with modern power generation
    equipment.
        The Pilot Butte Power Plant is referred to by Reclamation as
    ``Reserved Works'', meaning the facility and the appurtenant penstock
    and head gate are to be retained by Reclamation for its use in
    generating power income. The Reserved Works designation does not allow
    the facilities to be transferred by any other means but through an act
    of Congress.
        As mentioned, the power plant has been shut down and mothballed
    since 2008 and a future plan for demolition was estimated by
    Reclamation at approximately $5M several years ago. Additionally,
    Reclamation incurs mounting annual costs for maintenance and
    inspections of the facility even as it sits idle.
        Midvale Irrigation District recognizes the mounting costs of the
    facility to Reclamation and is petitioning Congress to transfer the
    reserved works to the District for the opportunity to rehabilitate the
    building and purchase the new equipment to produce hydroelectric power
    during its irrigation season, which is approximately 6 months of the
    year. Ultimately the produced power would benefit the District's 940
    water users in keeping with the goal of providing the maximum amount of
    available water to the District's constituents at the lowest reasonable
    cost each year. The property the Power Plant and appurtenances are
    located on is managed by the Midvale Irrigation District for
    Reclamation and is eligible for title transfer through the Dingell Act,
    as ``Transferred Works'', but the reserved works are not.
        In closing, the Midvale Irrigation District is in support of the
    ``Pilot Butte Power Plant Conveyance Act'' and asks that it be
    supported by the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
    before you today and I'll gladly answer any questions the Subcommittee
    may have.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Lynn. I now recognize Mr. Leonard
    for 5 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF TOM LEONARD, ALDERMAN, TOWN OF NORTH TOPSAIL
                         BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA

        Mr. Leonard. Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and
    members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    provide testimony today on H.R. 2437.
        This legislation will correct a mapping error made by the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over 40 years ago when it
    incorrectly designated the northern end of Topsail Island, now
    the town of North Topsail Beach, as a Coastal Barrier Resources
    Act, or CBRA, zone.
        North Topsail Beach is one of three small towns located on
    Topsail Island, a 26-mile-long barrier island between
    Jacksonville and Wilmington, North Carolina, and adjacent to
    Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. Due to our proximity to Camp
    Lejeune, many of our residents and visitors have a military
    connection, including myself, a retired U.S. Marine Corps
    officer with 30 years of service. Like you, North Topsail Beach
    plays an important role in a collective Federal, state, and
    local effort to preserve and maintain barrier islands.
        As the primary law that protects barrier islands, CBRA is a
    law that we hold in the highest regard and with the greatest
    respect. As effective as CBRA has been collectively for the
    Federal Government, the taxpayers, and the environment, the
    application of the law in North Topsail Beach has not been
    wholly positive or successful. In fact, both North Topsail
    Beach and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recognize that
    Topsail Unit L06 is one of the most developed CBRA System units
    in the United States.
        CBRA has been overwhelmingly successful at deterring
    development. So, the question must be asked: Why did CBRA not
    deter development in North Topsail Beach?
        Development continued in North Topsail Beach after the
    passage of CBRA because the town already had a full complement
    of infrastructure in place before the enactment of CBRA in
    October 1982. Having a full complement of infrastructure is one
    of two primary criteria the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service uses
    to determine if an area is developed and thus not eligible for
    inclusion in the Coastal Barrier Resources System, the other
    being the density of development.
        The full complement of infrastructure is defined by law as
    a road with a reinforced road bed, a wastewater disposal
    system, electric service, and a fresh water supply, all of
    which must be sufficient to serve each lot or building site in
    the area. A thorough examination of records and documentation,
    which is summarized in my written testimony, shows that the
    north end of Topsail Island had a full complement of
    infrastructure that meets the requirements outlined in the
    Service's own guidance and the law.
        Roadways have existed along the entire length of Topsail
    Island since the 1940s. A 1982 zoning map shows that all lots
    on the northern end of Topsail Island had direct access to a
    road with a reinforced roadbed. Jones-Onslow Electric
    Membership Cooperative has provided electrical service to the
    island since the 1940s. Maps supplied by Jones-Onslow show that
    even the most northern reaches of Topsail Island had electrical
    service by 1980. North Topsail Water and Sewer was established
    in 1979 to provide water and sewer services to North Topsail.
    Onslow County began to construct its own water system to
    service the island in 1980. Records establish that water and
    sewer utility lines ran to the northernmost reaches of the
    island by the end of 1981.
        Hundreds of structures were built in North Topsail before
    the enactment of CBRA, and hundreds more were built in the
    years following due to the substantial infrastructure
    investments made on the island by both public and private
    entities. There was so much growth in the area that in 1980
    West Onslow Beach, which is now North Topsail Beach, was
    nominated as a statewide ``growth center.''
        It is clear that Congress did not intend to include areas
    in CBRA with such significant on-the-ground infrastructure
    investment by private entities and local governments. We agree
    with Congress which said that ``an area which has a full
    complement of infrastructure,'' i.e. some combination of roads,
    water, sewers, electric lines, et cetera, but not structures,
    suggests that the area is, as a practical matter, already
    developed.
        Being included in CBRA has no doubt had an impact on our
    community. Our residents cannot qualify for Federal flood
    insurance. Our town cannot apply for Federal grants and loans
    or named storm assistance, and our veterans cannot access
    federally backed mortgage products, including VA loans.
        But H.R. 2437 is about equal treatment under the law and is
    in no way an attempt to subvert CBRA. This bill will just allow
    our community to be treated like any other community that was
    not mapped into CBRA, including the two other towns on Topsail
    Island.
        On behalf of the town of North Topsail Beach, I urge you to
    support and approve H.R. 2437. Thank you again for this
    generous opportunity.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Leonard follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Tom Leonard, LtCol, USMC (ret.) Alderman, Town of
                      North Topsail Beach, North Carolina
                                  on H.R. 2437

        Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today
    on H.R. 2437, a bill to revise the boundaries of Coastal Barrier
    Resources System (CBRS) Unit L06 in North Topsail Beach, North
    Carolina. The legislation will correct a mapping error made by the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service over 40 years ago when it incorrectly
    designated the northern end of Topsail Island, now the Town of North
    Topsail Beach, as a Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) zone.
        North Topsail Beach is one of three small towns located on Topsail
    Island, a 26-mile-long barrier island between Jacksonville and
    Wilmington, North Carolina, and adjacent to Marine Corps Base Camp
    Lejeune. With a year-round population of just 1,005, North Topsail
    Beach is a quiet, rural beach town. Due to our proximity to Camp
    Lejeune, many of our residents and visitors have a military connection,
    including myself, a retired United States Marine Corps officer with 30
    years of service.

        Like you, North Topsail Beach is passionate about protecting
    coastal barrier islands and their significant resources. We have a
    great responsibility in the collective federal-state-local effort to
    preserve and maintain these important natural resources. We will always
    remain committed to carrying out the purposes and objectives of the
    CBRA as an active partner with the federal government. As the primary
    law that protects barrier islands, it is a law that we hold in the
    highest regard. As the CBRA law rightly states, ``coastal barriers
    contain resources of extraordinary scenic, scientific, recreational,
    natural, historic, archeological, cultural, and economic importance.''
    The CBRA is a testament to the shared interest that the nation has in
    protecting coastal barrier islands and their ``extraordinary''
    resources.

        As effective as the CBRA has been collectively for the federal
    government, the taxpayers, and the environment, the application of the
    law in North Topsail Beach has not been wholly positive or successful.
    In fact, both North Topsail Beach and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service (Service) recognize that CBRS Unit L06 is one of the most
    developed CBRS units in the United States. The CBRA has been
    overwhelmingly successful at deterring development, so the question
    must be asked, ``Why did the CBRA not deter development in North
    Topsail Beach?'' Development continued in North Topsail Beach after the
    passage of the CBRA because the Town already had a ``full complement of
    infrastructure'' in place before the enactment of the CBRA in 1982.
    Having a full complement of infrastructure is one of two primary
    criteria the Service uses to determine if an area is developed and thus
    not eligible for inclusion in the CBRS, the other being the density of
    development. For this reason, the proposed mapping change will not set
    a new precedent for CBRS mapping changes. North Topsail Beach is a
    unique situation, and few (if any) other CBRS units have received the
    same level of analysis and attention as Unit L06.

        The legislation does not intend or aim to remove Unit L06 from the
    CBRS. We understand the purposes of the CBRA and support its
    overarching goals and objectives. The legislation will remove only
    approximately 590 acres of the total 5,865 acres from the Unit. The
    approximately 590 acres that will be removed will only include areas
    served by a ``full complement of infrastructure'' before the mapping
    and designation of CBRS Unit L06 in 1982.

    Evidence of a Full Complement of Infrastructure

        North Topsail Beach has done extensive research to document
    development at the north end of Topsail Island before 1982. North
    Topsail Beach submitted this research, totaling 199 pages, to the
    Service during a 2009 request for comment on its ``Draft Report to
    Congress: John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Digital
    Mapping Pilot Project.'' The results of this analysis are summarized
    herein.

        As you know, in 1981, the Department of the Interior (DOI) was
    directed by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (OBRA, P.L.
    97-35) to map undeveloped coastal barriers for Congressional
    consideration. In response, DOI published a notice of proposed action
    in the Federal Register on August 16, 1982, titled ``Federal Flood
    Insurance Prohibition for Undeveloped Coastal Barriers; Proposed
    Identification and Submission of Report to Congress'' (Proposed
    Criteria or 47 FR 35696). The Proposed Criteria provided the
    definitions and delineation standards of undeveloped coastal barriers
    that guided DOI mapping efforts and is still used to guide the
    Service's mapping and CBRS unit review efforts today.

        In 1982, Congress designated relatively undeveloped coastal
    barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts--later including parts of
    Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Great Lakes, and the Florida
    Keys during the 1990 reauthorization--as part of the CBRS in order to
    remove the incentive to develop coastal barriers by limiting federal
    expenditures and financial assistance to designated CBRS units.

        Congress later codified some of the definitions outlined by the
    Service in the Proposed Criteria in Section 2 of the Coastal Barrier
    Resources Reauthorization Act of 2000 (CBRRA) to provide additional
    clarification and guidance on what should be considered an undeveloped
    coastal barrier. Section 2 of the CBRRA specifies that, at the time of
    the inclusion of a System unit within the System, a coastal barrier
    area is considered developed if the density of development is more than
    one structure per five acres of land above mean high tide and if there
    is a full complement of infrastructure in place. A full complement of
    infrastructure is defined in the law as:

            (i)  a road, with a reinforced roadbed, to each lot or building
            site in the area;

            (ii)  a wastewater disposal system sufficient to serve each lot
            or building site in the area;

            (iii)  electric service for each lot or building site in the
            area; and

            (iv)  a fresh water supply for each lot or building site in the
            area.

        The corresponding report language (Senate Report 106-252) states:

            ``Section 2(1) amends the Coastal Barrier Resources Act by
            establishing a set of criteria to serve as a guide to the
            Congress, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the public to
            determine whether a coastal barrier should be considered
            developed, and therefore excluded from the CBRS. The criteria
            are based on a rule that was proposed by the Department of the
            Interior in August 1982, but was never finalized (47 FR 35696).
            Despite never being finalized, the proposed rule has long
            served as a guideline for Congress and the Fish and Wildlife
            Service when they review suggested changes to the CBRS. In
            accordance with the proposed rule, this section would consider
            an area developed if it has more than 1-structure per 5-acres,
            or a full complement of infrastructure--which is defined to
            include water supply, wastewater disposal, electricity, and
            paved roads.''

        The original 1982 mapping and subsequent 1990 additions to the CBRS
    designated sections of North Topsail Beach as CBRS Unit L06. However,
    the Service should not have been mapped North Topsail Beach into the
    CBRS because the area had a full complement of infrastructure in place
    prior to the mapping and subsequent designation of the Unit on October
    18, 1982. According to the criteria described in the CBRRA, Senate
    Report 106-252, and the following guidance from the Proposed Criteria,
    the area meets the conditions for having a full complement of
    infrastructure:

            ``All or part of a coastal barrier will be considered
            developed, even when there is less than one structure per five
            acres of fastland, if there is a full complement of
            infrastructure in place. This is consistent with the clear
            intent of Congress on this point (Congressional Record, July
            31, 1981, p. H5793). A full complement of infrastructure
            requires that there be vehicle access (i.e., improved roads or
            docks) to each lot or building site plus reasonable
            availability of a water supply, a wastewater disposal system,
            and electrical service to each lot or building site. Ability to
            use on-site wells and/or septic systems on each later building
            site in a development, when legally authorized and the normal
            practice in the vicinity, will constitute water supply and
            sewage infrastructure since they can be drilled and/or
            installed concurrently with the construction of the structure
            (House Report 97-158, Vol. 1, June 19, 198, p. 100; and
            Congressional Record, July 31, 1981, p. H5793.)''

        The Service made an important distinction here that cannot be
    overlooked. The Service stated that a coastal barrier will be
    considered developed even when there is less than one structure per
    five acres of fastland if there is a full complement of infrastructure
    in place and said that these criteria are ``consistent with the clear
    intent of Congress.'' The reference the Service made to the
    Congressional Record on July 31, 1981, is critical because, on that
    day, the U.S. House of Representatives passed by unanimous consent the
    OBRA conference report, which, as you know, directed DOI to create the
    maps that would become the CBRS one year later. And on that day,
    Representative Thomas B. Evans of Delaware--an original author of the
    aforementioned OBRA language and later the CBRA itself--spoke to the
    House on the record ``to firmly establish the legislative intent of the
    sponsors of the provision.'' Included in Representative Evans' remarks
    is a discussion of what the sponsors consider an undeveloped coastal
    barrier:

            ``Regarding the determination of which coastal barriers are
            undeveloped, the House adopted, and the Senate agreed to,
            section 1321(b)(2) which requires that an undeveloped coastal
            barrier shall be treated as such only if there are few people-
            made structures on the barrier, or portion of a barrier, so
            that these structures and human activities on the barrier do
            not significantly impede geomorphic and ecological processes.
            In interpreting the first aspect of this standard, the authors
            intend that the Department use the same standard which they
            have used in their ongoing inventory of coastal barriers. That
            is, an area which averages less than one structure per 5 acres
            should be considered undeveloped. We also expect, and this was
            noted in the report from the Banking Committee, that the
            Department will take into account the level of infrastructure--
            roads, water, sewers, electric lines, jetties, and so forth--in
            place in making this determination. For example, the presence
            of scattered structures with no associated infrastructure
            suggests that an area is not developed. On the other hand, an
            area which has a full complement of infrastructure; that is,
            some combination of the above-mentioned items, but no
            structures, should be considered as being already developed''
            (Congressional Record, July 31, 1981, p. H18935-H18936).

        Representative Evans clearly stated that the sponsors intended for
    coastal barriers with a full complement of infrastructure (some
    combination of roads, water, sewer, electric lines, jetties, etc.) to
    be considered developed, even if there are no structures. Some areas of
    North Topsail Beach met both criteria and were not included in CBRS
    Unit L06. Those pockets are clearly visible on the current maps for the
    Unit. However, other areas of North Topsail Beach seemingly needed more
    structures to meet the density of development criteria despite the
    significant growth occurring on the north end of Topsail Island.
    Nevertheless, the significant infrastructure on the island, which
    supported the existing structures and later development, was in place
    before the passage of the CBRA in 1982.
        In 1981-1982, when the Service was mapping coastal barriers per
    Congress' directive in the OBRA, development status was determined
    primarily on the density of visible structure as seen from aerial
    photography. This method is understandable given the immense amount of
    mapping the Service needed to complete within a short period. According
    to a July 28, 1982, memo from the Coastal Barrier Task Force to the
    Secretary of the Interior on the Interim Proposed Undeveloped Coastal
    Barrier Designation for Topsail Unit L06, the Task Force stated,
    ``Aerial photography taken April 30, 1982, verifies the existence of
    the components including a linear beach feature, sand dunes, and
    landward aquatic habitat within the area proposed for designation as an
    undeveloped coastal barrier. In addition, those aerial photographs
    confirm the lack of sufficient structure and other facilities or
    visible impacts to consider the area proposed for designation developed
    as defined by statute.''
        However, this aerial examination method did not reveal the
    significant infrastructure development already on the ground. A
    thorough examination of records and documentation shows that the north
    end of Topsail Island had a full complement of infrastructure that
    meets the requirements outlined in the Proposed Criteria and the CBRRA.
    Roads
        Roadways have existed along the entire length of Topsail Island
    since the 1940s. State records indicate a fully paved road in 1953,
    which became part of the state highway system in 1968. A 1982 Onslow
    County Zoning Map shows that all lots on the northern end of Topsail
    Island had direct access to a road with a reinforced roadbed.
        In addition, North Topsail Beach is accessible from the mainland by
    NC Highway 210 and the Larry Walton Memorial Bridge, which was built in
    1968. The bridge provides direct and convenient access to North Topsail
    Beach and is responsible, in part, for the significant growth on
    Topsail Island in the 1970s and 1980s. Bridge access to the island has
    also been available through Surf City, the town just to our south,
    since 1955.
    Electricity
        Jones-Onslow Electric Membership Corporation (EMC) has provided
    electrical service to Topsail Island since the 1940s. Easement records
    show that Jones-Onslow EMC aggressively expanded electrical service
    throughout Topsail Island in 1977 and 1978. Maps supplied by Jones-
    Onslow EMC show that even the most northern reaches of Topsail Island
    had electrical service by 1980. Electrical lines suspended on telephone
    poles were installed well before 1982 along NC Highway 210 and New
    River Inlet Road, allowing every lot in the area direct access to
    power.
    Water and Sewer
        North Topsail Water and Sewer was established in 1979 to provide
    water and sewer services to North Topsail. The North Carolina
    Department of Transportation granted the company easements to extend
    its utility lines along New River Inlet Road in 1980. A pump station at
    the center of New River Inlet Road was also operational by 1980. That
    same year, Onslow County began to construct its own water system. The
    County's system gained utility easement rights along Island Drive while
    North Topsail Water and Sewer still serviced the New River Inlet Road
    area. In 1981, North Topsail Water and Sewer transferred ownership of
    its water system to Onslow County. Records establish the location of
    North Topsail Water and Sewer's utility lines as running from NC
    Highway 210 to the New River Inlet. Onslow County completed its water
    pipelines along Island Drive by the end of 1981.
        Initial sewer permits were issued in 1979 to service the northern
    section of Topsail Island. A 53,000-foot extension of sewer lines was
    installed in 1982, and a pump station was located near the bridge (now
    the Larry Walton Memorial Bridge). Most significantly, an expanded
    33.4-acre treatment facility and a 268-acre irrigation area were
    constructed at this time, which still supports North Topsail Beach's
    wastewater needs today.
        Groundwater sources for water wells were also readily available to
    supplement the water supply, and the installation of septic systems was
    available to lots where sewer lines were not already installed.
        As a result of the significant infrastructure investments by
    private and public entities, there were approximately 490 existing
    housing units in North Topsail Beach by the end of 1981, and 100
    additional units were constructed in 1982. Zoning authority records
    indicate that 179 more housing units were built in 1983, 232 more in
    1984, 250 more in 1985, and so on. There was so much growth in the area
    in the late 1970s and early 1980s that in 1980, West Onslow Beach (now
    North Topsail Beach) was nominated as a statewide ``growth center''
    (1980 Onslow County Resolution).
        According to 1982 zoning maps, approximately 796 lots were on the
    main road. As was the case for the existing structures, each lot could
    connect directly to electrical, sewer, and water services. The adequacy
    of infrastructure is shown clearly by the fact that the Service
    excluded from the CBRS two housing developments at the extreme north
    end of New River Inlet. These developments were made possible because
    of the existing roadways, electric and water infrastructure, and the
    ability to install private drives, septic systems, and wells.

        In summary, before the passage of the CBRA, the north end of
    Topsail Island had in place infrastructure consisting of:

      1.  a road with a reinforced roadbed (NC Highway 210 and New River
                Inlet Road);

      2.  a wastewater disposal system sufficient to serve each lot or
                building site in the area (North Topsail Water and Sewer
                Corporation, Onslow County, and availability of septic);

      3.  electric service for each lot or building site in the area
                (Jones-Onslow EMC); and

      4.  a fresh water supply for each lot or building site in the area
                (North Topsail Water and Sewer Corporation, Onslow County,
                and availability of groundwater sources for wells).

        (North Topsail Beach's Infrastructure Analysis totals 199 pages and
    therefore exceeds the testimony attachment limitations allowed by the
    Subcommittee. North Topsail Beach can provide the Subcommittee with the
    Infrastructure Analysis at a later date at the Subcommittee's request.)

        We must also address the single highway corridor provision outlined
    in the Proposed Criteria. While the Service generally identifies
    vehicle access, water supply, wastewater disposal, and electrical
    service as the infrastructure necessary for an area to be considered
    developed, the Service also qualifies that ``[t]he presence on a
    coastal barrier of a single road, or even a through highway, plus
    associated electric transmission and water and sewer lines in this
    highway corridor does not constitute the necessary full complement of
    infrastructure necessary to support development.'' The terms ``through
    highway'' and ``highway corridor'' suggest a highway with limited
    direct access from private lots. We must emphasize that NC Highway 210
    and New River Inlet Road are the primary local roadways in North
    Topsail Beach. Due to the island's narrow configuration, the main
    water, wastewater, and electrical infrastructure lines were placed down
    these roads, with most lots directly bordering the roads, as you would
    see on a typical neighborhood street. There was no restricted access to
    these roads from lots or building sites, as would be the case if NC
    Highway 210 and State Route 1568/New River Inlet Road were through
    highways or highway corridors.
        In its ``Draft Report to Congress: John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier
    Resources System Digital Mapping Project'' (2009), the Service
    ``affirmed that sewer and water lines were installed along the main
    roads and primary electric service was available'' in North Topsail
    Beach but said that ``secondary services were not constructed until the
    lots were developed'' (p. D-14). There are no references to ``secondary
    services'' in the OBRA, CBRA, CBRRA, Proposed Criteria, or related
    documents. The term seems to reference infrastructure installed from a
    primary utility line onto a building site. Without a structure, there
    is no need for ``secondary services'' to a lot or building site. We
    again reference Representative Evans' comments: ``. . . the presence of
    scattered structures with no associated infrastructure suggests that an
    area is not developed. On the other hand, an area which has a full
    complement of infrastructure; that is, some combination of the above-
    mentioned items, but no structures, should be considered as being
    already developed'' (Congressional Record, July 31, 1981, p. H18935-
    H18936). The Service refrained from including any reference to
    ``secondary services'' in its final report to Congress (2016).
        Further, this same infrastructure provided service to lots in the
    southern half of North Topsail Beach, which were not included in the
    CBRS, and two developments in the northern half, which were excluded
    from the CBRS. In the case of the southern half of the Town, NC Highway
    210 was not considered a single road, through highway, or highway
    corridor, even though the same infrastructure that served the southern
    half of the Town also served the northern half. We must also note that
    the other communities on Topsail Island, Surf City and Topsail Beach,
    were not included in the CBRS.
    Federal Flood Insurance and Other Impacts

        In removing certain areas of North Topsail Beach from the CBRS,
    H.R. 2437 will allow the Town and its residents to qualify for federal
    financial assistance, just like any other community not in the CBRS.
        For example, H.R. 2437 will enable property owners to obtain
    federal flood insurance. These structures are currently covered by
    private flood insurance, which is generally only provided at full risk
    rates. If the legislation is approved, these homeowners can remain on
    their current private plans or move to the NFIP. If a homeowner
    switches to the NFIP, that property would not be eligible for any
    special status (i.e., grandfathering) and would therefore be expected
    to pay full risk rates.
        Although several hundred housing units within CBRS Unit L06 were
    built between 1982 (the year CBRA was authorized) and when the 1987
    flood standard went into effect, most structures built in this area are
    post-FIRM and therefore built to at least the 1987 flood standard. Due
    to Town ordinances, property owners within CBRS Unit L06 must meet the
    same flood policy dwelling standards adhered to by the non-CBRS
    residents, who must meet NFIP standards. In addition, due to the Town's
    successful floodplain management policies and Community Rating System
    standing, eligible properties in North Topsail Beach receive
    substantial premium discounts through the NFIP.
        Regarding previous CBRA legislation, it is our understanding that
    the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) historically has not provided
    estimated costs to the federal government regarding future flood
    events, stating that there is no basis for predicting such events and
    thus no basis for providing an estimated cost to the federal
    government. However, some suggest that taking areas out of the CBRS
    puts the federal government at risk.
        North Topsail Beach completed an analysis of flood insurance claims
    filed from 1987, the year North Topsail Beach began participating in
    the NFIP, through 2015. This analysis shows that North Topsail Beach is
    a donor community, meaning it contributes more to the NFIP than it
    receives (refer to the tables below). Between 1987 and 2015, average
    yearly NFIP claims in North Topsail Beach totaled $524,235, while
    annual NFIP premiums totaled $1,725,329. (Approximately 56 percent of
    policies are for pre-FIRM structures and 44 percent are for post-FIRM
    structures.) Based on this analysis, North Topsail Beach property
    owners pay 329 percent more in annual NFIP premiums than they claim.
    Therefore, it can be assumed that North Topsail Beach will not only
    continue to be a donor community to the NFIP but will also likely
    contribute more to the NFIP (in terms of both percentages and annual
    surplus contributions) because a greater share of structures will be
    post-FIRM.
        The CBRS designation has also prohibited property owners and
    homebuyers from access to federally backed mortgage products. This is
    especially challenging given North Topsail Beach's proximity to Camp
    Lejeune, one of the largest military installations in the nation. Many
    of our residents currently serve in the military or are military
    veterans, and due to the Town's CBRS designation, these residents
    cannot access V.A. loans.
        Of course, the CBRS designation has prevented the Town itself from
    applying for federal financial assistance, including FEMA Public
    Assistance after storm events, and most other federal grants, loans,
    and technical support.
    Conclusion

        H.R. 2437 will only remove from the CBRS areas of North Topsail
    Beach that were served by a full complement of infrastructure before
    the mapping and designation of CBRS Unit L06 in 1982. As is clear from
    our review of the law, the Proposed Criteria, House and Senate Reports,
    and the Congressional Record, coastal barrier areas served by a full
    complement of infrastructure must be deemed developed and thus not
    designated as part of the CBRS. It is clear that Congress did not
    intend to include areas in the CBRS with such significant on-the-ground
    infrastructure investment by local governments and private entities. As
    a practical matter, undeveloped areas do not have such substantial
    public and private infrastructure investment, particularly areas where
    there is a clear intention that the infrastructure is meant to support
    residential structures. Undeveloped areas do not have sewer lines,
    water lines, wastewater treatment facilities, electricity, and paved
    roads that serve no purpose. We agree with Congress that ``. . . an
    area which has a full complement of infrastructure (i.e., some
    combination of roads, waters, sewers, electrical lines, etc.) but not
    structures, suggests that the area is, as a practical matter, already
    developed'' (House Report 97-158, Volume 1, page 100).
        We want to express to you our serious commitment to preserving the
    CBRA. We do not take this request lightly, and we know how important it
    is to you that we all continue to protect and further the integrity and
    goals of the CBRA. In the spirit of the CBRA, the Town has placed 60
    percent of its total land acreage in conservation zoning and restricted
    development to 30 percent of residentially zoned properties. In
    accordance with the Town's adopted Land Use Plan, conservation zones
    can never be rezoned for development, protecting this land from future
    development incursions. H.R. 2437 is about equal treatment under the
    law and is in no way an attempt to subvert the CBRA. We fully
    understand the importance of preserving the integrity of barrier
    islands. A barrier island is our home, and preserving our home is our
    highest priority.
        On behalf of the Town of North Topsail Beach, I urge you to support
    and approve H.R. 2437.
        Thank you for your time and attention.

                                     *****

                                  ATTACHMENTS

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Leonard. I now recognize Mr.
    Stiles for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ``SKIP'' A. STILES, JR., SENIOR ADVISOR,
                   WETLANDS WATCH, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA

        Mr. Stiles. Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, members
    of the Subcommittee, Vice Chair Kiggans, my name is William
    Stiles. I am Senior Advisor to Wetlands Watch, and for 16 years
    before that I was Executive Director.
        Wetlands Watch is a statewide environmental organization in
    Virginia working on the conservation and protection of
    wetlands. As such, we use a number of state and Federal
    programs to protect the wetlands. And CBRA, the Coastal Barrier
    Resources Act, serves in that role. Its nearly 164,000 acres in
    Virginia is a significant help to the efforts to protect
    wetlands in Virginia. That is why we are pleased to see the
    introduction of H.R. 5490 to expand the System and add over
    96,000 acres to Virginia's part of the System. We also welcome
    the chance to open a conversation about some additional
    improvements needed to the System.
        As has been mentioned numerous times, CBRA is a long-time
    bipartisan success story with lots of support, and I will not
    detail that part of it here. I will say that we have two wishes
    in the consideration of this bill.
        First, Congress should add the more than 292,000 acres to
    CBRA that have been mapped by the Fish and Wildlife and that
    are contained in the BEACH Act. Adding these areas along the
    Atlantic and Gulf Coasts will expand the benefits of CBRA,
    which, again, have been detailed here: the billions of dollars
    in flood loss avoided, the billions of dollars that are
    provided in habitat to commercial fisheries.
        The second part of this, Congress should plan for
    tomorrow's challenges today by drawing on innovative state
    programs and implement the Federal Coastal Hazards Pilot
    Project to look at future conditions and how the CBRA System
    needs to adapt to them. It is imperative that on the Federal
    level we plan for the challenges that sea level rise will
    bring, and amplify actions being taken by the state.
        Virginia's program is a result of acknowledging the changes
    taking place and acting on the serious risk that the state
    faces. Virginia has, over the last century, had the highest
    rate of relative sea level rise on the East Coast, three to
    four times the global average. In response, a number of
    Virginia State agencies have taken action. Our Virginia
    Department of Transportation has new engineering standards for
    bridges; localities have adopted sea level rise in their
    planning documents; we have new standards for siting of state
    buildings; and even the Department of Defense, in its joint
    land use work around military facilities, is using sea level
    rise in those planning scenarios.
        Virginia has also enacted first-in-the-nation changes to
    its shoreline regulatory statutes that require permitting
    agencies to consider sea level rise in issuing development and
    land-disturbing permits. The goal of these changes is to
    identify and protect areas into which the wetlands will migrate
    as sea level rises.
        As the intertidal zone rises, it wants to move up shore,
    and it will move onshore unless there are barriers in the way.
    In that case, if there are barriers, the coastal ecosystem will
    drown in place, causing tremendous loss to the acreage that is
    there.
        So, Virginia's statutory changes to our shoreline
    regulatory programs don't just support the fisheries and
    habitat, they also recognize the value of keeping development
    away from harm, echoing the dual goals of CBRA: minimizing
    development along the shore to reduce coastal residents'
    exposure to risk, while maintaining escape routes for the
    habitat.
        Other states are acting, as well. Maryland is mapping
    wetlands migration corridors to better target its conservation
    easement programs and land purchase programs. So, the timing is
    perfect for Congress to direct the Fish and Wildlife Service
    and other Federal and state agencies to conduct a pilot project
    to explore how CBRA would be extended upland to provide habitat
    and protect communities. States are working hard to plan for
    the future, and the CBRA pilot project would help support and
    inform that work.
        When Wetlands Watch began 16 years ago working on sea level
    rise, our goal was to keep the houses away from the wetlands.
    We wanted to avoid the development's impact on the wetlands,
    but we also wanted to allow escape zones for the wetlands. And
    we also recognized that the wetlands and the shoreline
    ecosystem are the leading edge of the oceans, and there is
    great risk when you build too close to the ocean. Sixteen years
    later, we are finding that coastal residents want the wetlands
    away from their houses because the wetlands are slowly inching
    onto their property, bringing greater risk. So, we have
    agreement that the wetlands and the houses should be separated.
    All that is lacking is a strategy to do that, and that is what
    we hope that the pilot project would do.
        So, in conclusion, we very much support the addition of the
    acreage that is proposed in this bill, and we would also like
    the inclusion of the pilot program. Thank you for your
    consideration.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Stiles follows:]
      Prepared Statement of William A. Stiles, Jr., Senior Advisor/Former
                       Executive Director, Wetlands Watch
                           on H.R. 4590 and H.R. 2437

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to speak to you today regarding the Coastal Barrier
    Resources Act (CBRA).
        I am William A. Stiles, Jr. and for the last sixteen years, I was
    executive director of Wetlands Watch, a Norfolk, Virginia-based
    statewide nonprofit that has been working on the conservation and
    protection of wetlands since 2000. We have depended upon a number of
    state and federal protections for coastal ecosystems, including CBRA.
    At present, there are nearly 164,000 acres in the Coastal Barrier
    Resources System (System) in Virginia, with nearly 155,000 acres in
    aquatic habitat and over 8,700 acres of that in uplands. This acreage
    represents a significant portion of our coastal resources. The CBRA is
    important for Virginia and the nation, and there are opportunities to
    expand its benefits that Congress should act upon.
        The Coastal Barrier Resources Act is a bipartisan success story
    supported by taxpayer advocates, conservative think tanks,
    environmental groups, state officials, sportsmen's organizations,
    insurance industry groups, and Democrats and Republicans alike. CBRA is
    unique among federal programs. It has three goals: save federal tax
    dollars, conserve undeveloped coastal habitat, and promote public
    safety. To save federal tax dollars, CBRA prohibits most federal
    expenditures in areas included in the Coastal Barrier Resources System
    (System.) Development can still occur, but without the financial
    backing of the federal taxpayer. The CBRA System includes undeveloped
    areas, such as barrier islands and beaches, spits, inlets, wetlands,
    and estuarine areas. Roughly 3.5 million acres are in the System along
    the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, U.S. Virgin Islands,
    and Puerto Rico.
        CBRA has a long track record of bipartisan support. The original
    Act's author, Rep. Thomas B. Evans (R-DE), said CBRA was needed because
    ``the U.S. taxpayer should not subsidize and bear the risk for private
    development on coastal barriers.'' As he signed the bill into law in
    1982, President Ronald Reagan noted that CBRA ``simply adopts the
    sensible approach that risk associated with new private development in
    these sensitive areas should be borne by the private sector, not
    underwritten by the American taxpayer.'' Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA)
    introduced the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990, which expanded
    the CBRA System and was signed into law by Pres. George Bush. In 2000,
    legislation reauthorizing and strengthening CBRA was championed by Sen.
    John Chafee (R-RI) and signed into law by Pres. Bill Clinton, who
    applauded CBRA, saying that it, ``discourages development, keeping
    lives out of harm's way, protecting fish and wildlife habitat, and
    reducing wasteful expenditures of taxpayer dollars.'' In 2005, Sen.
    James Inhofe (R-IN) described CBRA as ``a free-market approach to
    conservation. These areas can be developed, but Federal taxpayers do
    not underwrite the investments.'' And in 2018, Reps. Lisa Blunt
    Rochester (D-DE) and Thomas J. Rooney (R-FL) introduced the
    ``Strengthening Coastal Communities Act of 2018,'' which added 18,000+
    acres to CBRA and was signed into law by Pres. Donald Trump.

        By all measures, CBRA has been a phenomenal success. By removing
    the dozens of federal programs that subsidize coastal development, CBRA
    has saved the Federal Treasury nearly $10 billion in avoided
    expenditures and is on track to save billions more. CBRA has helped
    steer people away from areas prone to deadly hurricanes, rising seas,
    and growing climate change impacts, with 85% of CBRA areas remaining
    undeveloped or lightly developed. And CBRA has helped conserve habitat
    that is vitally important to wildlife and the nation's commercial and
    recreational fishing industries. I would like to focus my discussion on
    the benefits of the CBRA and the need to expand and strengthen it
    through new legislation. My testimony will focus on:

         Planning for tomorrow's challenges today: Drawing on
                innovative state programs to implement a federal Coastal
                Hazards Pilot Project. In order to protect areas that will
                be crucially important for tomorrow's economies,
                environment, and public safety, Congress should authorize a
                Coastal Hazards Pilot Project, informed by on-the-ground
                state programs, to start identifying coastal hazard areas
                and areas where habitat can migrate as sea levels rise and
                front-line coastal defenses are lost.

         Protecting today's vulnerable coastal areas: Enacting the
                ``Hurricane Sandy maps'' and associated maps. Congress
                should enact maps that would add 292,000+ acres to the CBRA
                in order to save the taxpayer billions of dollars, conserve
                important habitat, and ensure flood protections for today's
                coastal communities.

         Accurately reflecting coastal conditions: Updating the
                CBRA's definitions. CBRA's definition of a ``coastal
                barrier'' needs to be updated to include bluffs and other
                land areas that help buffer upland communities from the
                impacts of storms, erosion, flooding and rising seas.

    1. Planning for tomorrow's challenges today: Drawing on innovative
            state programs to implement a federal Coastal Hazards Pilot
            Project.

        It is imperative that on the federal level, we plan for the
    challenges that sea level rise will bring just as states are already
    doing, including in Virginia. Virginia has modified its shoreline
    protection laws as the first step in implementing a program to protect
    coastal areas at risk from sea level rise, along with adjacent upland
    areas, so that coastal habitat like wetlands can ``migrate'' into them
    in response to rising seas. These hazard-prone shoreline areas have
    restrictions in place to protect state waters, and conditions on
    development. This pragmatic, forward-looking approach will help coastal
    communities plan for the future, and protect areas that can support
    important habitat. The CBRA, with its emphasis on reducing hazard-prone
    development and conserving habitat, provides the perfect federal
    mechanism for a similar approach.
        This week, Senators Tom Carper (D-DE) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC)
    reintroduced their bipartisan ``Strengthening Coastal Communities
    Act,'' which amends the CBRA to authorize a two-year pilot project. The
    Act directs the Fish and Wildlife Service, in cooperation with the Army
    Corps of Engineers, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (NOAA), Federal Emergency Management Agency and state governors, to
    develop criteria for mapping coastal hazard areas and areas to which
    habitat can migrate as sea level rises. The result of the project would
    be reported to Congress, and it would be up to Congress to act upon it.
    This Coastal Hazards Pilot Project should be included in any CBRA
    legislation considered by the House.
        The CBRA Coastal Hazards Pilot Project in the Senate legislation
    reflects the same forward-looking pragmatism as Virginia's program.
    Facing the reality of high sea level rise projections, Virginia made
    major modifications to our tidal wetlands and shoreline protection
    programs. These actions may provide a model for how the CBRA System
    might try to adapt to sea level rise and merit examination under a
    pilot program.
    The Virginia Program: Acknowledging and Acting on Risks.

        Virginia's program is the result of acknowledging and taking action
    upon serious risks that the state faces. Virginia has experienced the
    highest rate of relative sea level rise on the Atlantic Coast over the
    last century, rates of relative sea level rise 3 to 4 times the global
    average. We are already seeing the impacts from these higher tidal
    waters on our coastal resources and in our shoreline communities.
    Virginia will continue to experience even higher rates of relative sea
    level rise over the rest of this century, having been identified by
    NOAA as a sea level rise ``hotspot.''
        This has prompted many of Virginia's state and local government
    agencies to use higher rates of relative sea level rise, specifically
    the NOAA intermediate high projections, in their planning and
    operations. These projections indicate coastal Virginia will see an
    additional 1.5 feet of relative sea level rise above current mean
    higher high water (MHHW) by 2045, 3 feet by 2075, and 4.5 feet 2100.
        By executive order in 2019, Virginia set the NOAA intermediate high
    projections as state planning guidance, which the Virginia Department
    of Transportation used in its 2020 engineering standards for bridge
    construction. As well, local governments adopted this guidance in sea
    level rise plans, such as the City of Virginia Beach's 2020 ``Sea Level
    Wise'' plan. The regional planning entity in Southeast Virginia, the
    Hampton Roads Planning District, adopted this standard in 2018 in its
    ``Sea Level Rise Planning Policy and Approach'' guidance for the 17
    member localities to use in their planning. The Department of Defense,
    in its Joint Land Use Studies in Norfolk/Virginia Beach/Portsmouth are
    using a similar rate, developed by the DoD Coastal Assessment Regional
    Scenario Working Group (CARSWG) in this work to ensure operational
    readiness for military facilities.
        With these rates of relative sea level rise, areas within the
    Coastal Barrier Resources System (and the storm damage reduction they
    provide) will be severely adversely affected in just a few decades
    unless changes are made to CBRA. These needed changes are what the
    proposed Coastal Hazards Pilot Project would explore.
        In Virginia, the 155,000 acres in the CBRA System that are aquatic
    habitat will experience major impacts as shallow water aquatic habitat
    converts to deeper water habitat, adversely affecting submerged aquatic
    vegetation. Vegetated tidal wetlands will have to transgress landward
    or drown in place. Barrier islands will migrate landward. Unless we can
    adapt the System to these changes, more residences and structures will
    be exposed to storm risk, resulting in higher disaster payments, and
    vitally important habitat will be lost.
    Impacts of Sea Level Rise on Wetlands within the System and Wetlands
            Watch's Adaptation Efforts

        In the mid-Atlantic region, vegetated tidal wetlands adapt to sea
    level rise in two ways: they can accrete vertically or move
    horizontally. With modest sea level rise, these wetlands can accrete
    vertically, capturing sediment and growing on top of prior year's
    vegetation. In the Chesapeake Bay region, this rate of vertical
    accretion is about two feet per century. However, Virginia's current
    rate of relative sea level rise on the Atlantic Coast is in excess of
    the ability of vegetated tidal wetlands to accrete vertically . With
    the rates of relative sea level rise being experienced in Virginia, the
    only option for the intertidal ecosystem is to ``move uphill'' or
    transgress landward with the rising intertidal zone. If, however, there
    are hardened structures in the way--like buildings and seawalls--the
    wetlands cannot colonize the new/higher intertidal zone and will drown
    in place.
        In 2007, Wetlands Watch determined that with the rate of relative
    sea level rise we were experiencing then (+2.5 feet by 2100), we would
    lose between 50 and 80 percent of our vegetated tidal wetlands. If
    Virginia could keep the land uphill/landward from the wetlands free of
    development, allowing the coastal ecosystem to migrate or transgress
    landward as tidal waters rose, we would reduce that loss. However, if
    we allowed the land behind the wetlands to become developed, blocking
    the wetlands from migrating and causing them to drown in place, we
    would experience higher wetlands losses.
        Facing this threat, in 2007 Wetlands Watch switched its focus from
    conventional wetlands protection and focused on sea level rise
    adaptation, becoming one of the first organizations in the country to
    undertake this work. Wetlands Watch developed partnerships at the local
    government level to help inform land use and natural resources
    decisions by county and city staff and leadership in order to minimize
    shoreline development and lessen future wetlands losses.
        Working at the local level, Wetlands Watch saw that sea level rise
    adaptation was not just about the wetlands: coastal residents were at
    increasing flood risk from rising sea level as well. In coastal
    Virginia, we were seeing flood and storm damages increase and ``sunny
    day'' flooding disrupting communities. In Norfolk, Virginia, our
    schools started having ``flood days'' causing school delays and
    cancellation. Threats to our shoreline economy, outlays for disaster
    payments, and a range of other community impacts needed to be addressed
    as well. Shoreline adaptation was not just about the ecosystem but had
    to include increasingly at-risk coastal communities
        The approach Wetlands Watch has taken to address Virginia's sea
    level rise risk is similar to the one taken under CBRA. We have, from
    the beginning, seen habitat protection and community risk reduction as
    twin goals of our work. We realized that minimizing development along
    the tidal shoreline would both reduce coastal residents' exposure to
    risk while maintaining ``escape routes'' for the intertidal habitat.
    This is very similar to the approach that CBRA takes in reducing
    incentives for development that harm habitat and place people at risk.
    Virginia Is Taking Action

        Virginia provides regulatory protection to the coastal ecosystem
    with the Virginia Tidal Wetlands Act (Code of Virginia Sec. 62.1-
    44.15:20) which runs in parallel with the protections under the Federal
    Clean Water Act (33 USC Sec. 1344). Virginia also regulates development
    and disturbances in the zone adjacent to and landward of the tidal
    wetlands under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA) (Code of
    Virginia Sec. 62.1-44.15:67) in order to protect water quality.
    Together these two statutes regulate disturbances and development in
    the zone from low tide to one hundred feet uphill from tidal wetlands.
        In 2020, with the guidance of then-Secretary of Natural and
    Historic Resources, Matthew Strickler, Virginia's General Assembly
    added sea level rise to both of these regulatory programs, with a goal
    of ensuring the adaptation of Virginia's tidal and shoreline ecosystem.
    Both the Tidal Wetlands Law and the CBPA were changed to require permit
    decisions to include the NOAA intermediate high projections for
    relative sea level rise. As far as I can tell, Virginia is the first
    state in the country to put future conditions as a condition of permit
    approval under a shoreline regulatory program.
        With these changes, both the intertidal and the shoreline buffer
    permits include future projections of sea level rise, requiring permits
    to anticipate those future higher water levels and adapt to them. The
    hope is that as the sea levels rise, development on the land behind the
    intertidal zone will have conditions placed that will keep it free of
    barriers to migration, allowing the tidal ecosystem to move ``uphill''
    and escape higher tidal waters.
        In addition, the General Assembly has put sea level rise into
    Virginia's on-site septic regulations, a response to the failure of
    septic systems along the coastal shoreline. Shoreline development is
    facing the consequences of our high rates of sea level rise as these
    septic systems become inundated, fail, and begin releasing sewage into
    coastal waters, often fouling shellfish aquaculture operations. New
    siting regulations being developed will place additional conditions on
    siting these systems, including greater setbacks from the coastal
    shoreline for new development. These measures would reinforce
    Virginia's efforts to begin stepping back from the tidal shoreline.
        With these actions, Virginia is anticipating future sea level rise
    in both environmental protection and development decisions along its
    tidal shoreline. These policy actions to address the impacts of rising
    sea levels could inform a pilot program to address sea level rise
    within the Coastal Barrier Resources System.
        Other states are responding as well. Maryland has a program to
    identify ``Sea Level Rise Wetland Adaptation Areas'' to better target
    land acquisition and conservation easement programs to create escape
    routes for the coastal ecosystem. In many coastal states, actions are
    being taken that would both benefit from and help inform the Coastal
    Hazards Pilot Project proposed by the Senate legislation.
        We are strong supporters of the Coastal Barrier Resource System and
    see it as a long-standing bipartisan effort to protect coastal
    communities, preserve intertidal and shoreline natural resources, and
    limit federal taxpayer exposure to increasingly intense storm damage.
    It is imperative that the CBRS be strengthened to help address
    challenges that Virginia and other states are already working to
    address by authorizing the Coastal Hazards Pilot Project.
    2. Protecting today's vulnerable coastal areas: The benefits from
            expanding the CBRA by enacting the Hurricane Sandy maps and
            other CBRS maps.

        Rising seas and climate change exacerbate hurricane damage,
    contributing to deadly and enormously costly storms. Last year's
    Hurricane Ian claimed more than 150 lives and caused over $112 billion
    in damage, making it the costliest hurricane in Florida's history and
    the third-costliest in United States history. Coastal habitat, which
    supports wildlife and America's commercial and recreational fishing
    industries, is disappearing. More than 80,000 acres of coastal wetlands
    are being lost on average each year, with sea level rise expected to
    accelerate that rate.

        Expanding the CBRA to include 277,000+ acres identified by the Fish
    and Wildlife Service in the Hurricane Sandy impacted states, plus more
    than 15,000 acres in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico also
    identified by the Service, would lead to significant economic, public
    safety, and environmental benefits, such as those discussed below.
    CBRA saves billions of federal tax dollars, with the capacity to save
            billions more.

        CBRA prohibits most federal expenditures in areas included in the
    CBRA System, including federal flood insurance, grants to build
    highways, bridges and roads from the Department of Transportation, and
    similar expenses. Just a few examples illustrate how CBRA is a plus for
    the U.S. taxpayer and why expanding it makes good economic sense. CBRA:

         Reduces National Flood Insurance Program claims. A 2023
                study found that areas along the Gulf of Mexico and
                Atlantic included in CBRA saved $112 million per year in
                reduced National Flood Insurance Program claims, a 7%
                savings in annual NFIP claims.

         Generates multi-billion-dollar savings overall. A 2019
                economic study found that CBRA has saved the federal
                taxpayer roughly $9.5 billion and is projected to save $11-
                $108 billion over the next 50 years in shore areas included
                in CBRA. Extending CBRA upland would save billions more in
                avoided federal expenditures like disaster relief payments
                and federal flood insurance.
    CBRA supports important economies.

        Protecting undeveloped coastal areas from the dozens of federal
    programs that fund coastal development and redevelopment is vital for
    multi-billion-dollar economies that depend on healthy coastal
    ecosystems. CBRA-protected areas are the backbone of many important
    coastal economies. CBRA:

         Increases property values. A 2023 study found that CBRA
                designation increases property values in adjacent areas,
                thereby increasing the overall property tax base.

         Supports a healthy fishing industry. Fish and shellfish
                depend on healthy wetlands and estuaries, but according to
                the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
                coastal wetland degradation and loss has reduced the size
                and diversity of fish populations, affecting the
                sustainability of commercial and recreational fisheries. In
                2019, these fisheries supported 1.8 million jobs and
                contributed $255 billion to the economy in sales.
    Undeveloped areas included in CBRA help protect communities from deadly
            and costly storm damages.

        The undeveloped islands, beaches, spits, inlets, and wetland areas
    included in the CBRS provide important public safety benefits:

         Reduce flood damage. Wetlands act as natural sponges,
                absorbing and temporarily storing floodwaters. By holding
                back and slowing some of the floodwaters, wetlands can
                reduce the severity of flooding and erosion, protecting
                people, property, infrastructure, and agriculture from
                devastating flood damages. An acre of wetlands can store
                1.5 million gallons of floodwater. This protection saves
                vulnerable coastal communities $23 billion each year.

         Shield communities from storm and hurricane impacts. A
                study funded by the insurance giant Lloyds of London found
                that coastal wetlands prevented more than $625 million in
                property damages during the 2012 Hurricane Sandy, reducing
                property damages throughout the Northeastern United States
                by 10% on average.
    CBRA areas provide vitally important habitat.

        CBRA-protected areas are some of the last remaining undeveloped
    habitat for birds, sea mammals, sea turtles and a host of other
    species. As development paves over and drains habitat, CBRA areas are a
    lifeblood for wildlife, providing benefits such as:

         Sheltering and feeding birds. About one-half of North
                American bird species nest or feed in wetlands, with two of
                North America's migratory bird flyways passing over the
                Pacific and Atlantic coasts, where coastal wetlands provide
                habitat to waterfowl and shorebirds. It is estimated that
                birdwatching in the United States has an economic benefit
                of $41 billion.

         Supporting threatened and endangered species. Nearly half
                of federally threatened and endangered species need
                wetlands for their survival.
    Congress should enact the Hurricane Sandy maps of eligible areas along
            New England and the Mid-Atlantic.

        The 2012 Hurricane Sandy claimed lives and caused billions of
    dollars-worth of damage in many parts of the U.S. coast, including nine
    states in New England and the Mid-Atlantic: New Hampshire,
    Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,
    Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. The USFWS used supplemental Hurricane
    Sandy funding to evaluate the nine states' coasts and developed maps
    depicting areas that could be added to the CBRA System in the states.
    The draft maps were released for public comment, and notices of the
    maps' availability were provided to governors, state and local
    officials, and the general public. After public comment and review, the
    maps were finalized by the USFWS and transmitted to Congress in April
    2022 for action. Only Congress can enact the maps.

        The Hurricane Sandy maps would add roughly 277,000 acres to the
    CBRA System. Undeveloped barrier island areas, beaches and spits, along
    with inlets, wetlands, and other estuarine areas would be added to the
    System and receive its unique protection from federal development
    subsidies. Nine states would gain acreage:

         New Hampshire: 681 acres

         Massachusetts: 32,746 acres

         Rhode Island: 1,544 acres

         Connecticut: 5,248 acres

         New York: 19,799 acres

         New Jersey: 71,492 acres

         Delaware: 31,216 acres

         Maryland: 19,008 acres

         Virginia: 96,435 acres

    Congress should enact the maps of areas in the South Atlantic and Gulf
            of Mexico.

        The USFWS has also identified areas in the South Atlantic and the
    Gulf of Mexico that qualify for inclusion in the CBRA and has developed
    maps that were reviewed and commented on by the public, finalized by
    the Service, and transmitted to Congress for action. These maps should
    also be enacted by Congress to maximize CBRA's benefits in these
    coastal regions. The bipartisan Senate bill, the ``Strengthening
    Coastal Communities Act,'' and legislation introduced in the House in
    September 2023, H.R. 5490, the ``Bolstering Ecosystems Against Coastal
    Harm'' Act, would enact the Hurricane Sandy and South Atlantic and Gulf
    of Mexico maps. Expanding the CBRA to include these areas makes good
    economic and environmental sense and would increase and improve the
    nation's coastal resiliency.
    3. Expand the definition of a coastal barrier.

        When the CBRA was written in 1982, it defined ``coastal barriers''
    as primarily composed of unconsolidated sediments, such as islands and
    beaches, reflecting the kinds of landforms that are dominant along the
    Mid- and South-Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.
        In 1990, Congress updated that definition in recognition of the
    fact that other coastal landforms and aquatic areas also act as
    ``coastal barriers'' since they shield upland communities from storm
    and hurricane impacts and erosion, and provide important habitat.
    Congress added areas like granitic outcroppings in New England to the
    definition of a coastal barrier, and consolidated landforms like the
    Florida Keys. Congress also extended the CBRA to areas along the Great
    Lakes, reflecting the role that landforms along the Lakes play in
    reducing upland storm damages and providing habitat. Congress also
    added wetlands, marshes, and estuarine areas to the definition of a
    coastal barrier, in recognition of the vital role that these areas play
    in slowing storm impacts and supporting wildlife.
        As our scientific understanding of coastal processes has grown,
    Congress has responded by updating the definition of a coastal barrier.
    Another update is now needed to reflect new information about sea level
    rise and its impacts that's been learned since the last definition
    update in 1990. The bipartisan Senate ``Strengthening Coastal
    Communities Act'' would update the definition of a coastal barrier to
    include bluffs and areas that are and will be vulnerable to coastal
    hazards, such as flooding, storm surge, wind, erosion, and sea level
    rise. As I noted earlier in this testimony, the science of sea level
    rise is well-established, and federal agencies such as the Army Corps
    of Engineers, Department of Defense, NOAA and the Federal Emergency
    Management Agency are moving forward with programs to address sea level
    rise and its impacts. The CBRA must be updated to reflect what other
    federal agencies are doing and to keep CBRA current with scientific
    information. House legislation on CBRA should include the full
    definitional change to CBRA that is in the bipartisan Senate bill.
    H.R. 2437

        Regarding H.R. 2437, a bill to revise the boundaries of the CBRS in
    Topsail, North Carolina, it is my understanding that H.R. 2437 is
    contrary to CBRA and would result in significantly increased taxpayer
    burdens. The bill would remove around 660 acres of land from the CBRS
    unit, which was established in 1982. There have been arguments that the
    area had infrastructure in place when it was added to the CBRS in 1983,
    and that therefore, it didn't meet the definition of an ``undeveloped
    area'' and shouldn't have been included in the CBRA System. But the
    Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the unincorporated north end
    of Topsail Island was largely undeveloped in 1982, the land met the
    criteria to be placed within the CBRS, and therefore, the area was
    correctly added to the CBRS in 1983. The USFWS testified to the
    legitimacy of the inclusion of this area in the CBRS in testimony
    before Congress in 2014, and again in the 2016 ``Final Report to
    Congress'' on a pilot project that began the process of digitizing the
    CBRS maps.
        Lawsuits challenging the inclusion of the area in the CBRS have
    likewise failed. A district court judge ruled that the CBRA designation
    was justified, and the court of appeals upheld the district court's
    ruling and dismissed the case.
        If this area is removed from the CBRS, the federal taxpayer will be
    required to pay for expensive beach renourishment projects that the
    town wants the Army Corps of Engineers to undertake. The town of North
    Topsail Beach is proposing to nourish roughly 5,000 feet of shoreline
    every two years at a total cost of more than $58 million over 30 years.
    As of the 2020 census, the town of North Topsail Beach has 1,000
    residents, and the federal taxpayer would be required to help foot the
    bill for a nearly $60 million beach renourishment project to benefit a
    handful of local residents.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the area was
    rightly included in CBRA, and a district court and court of appeals
    have upheld that determination. H.R. 2437 is not warranted.

    CONCLUSION

        We strongly support the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, and we urge
    Congress to plan for tomorrow's challenges today by drawing on
    innovative state programs to implement a two-year Coastal Hazards Pilot
    Project. We also call on Congress to protect today's vulnerable coastal
    areas by enacting the ``Hurricane Sandy maps'' and associated maps. And
    we support an update to CBRA's definition of a ``coastal barrier'' to
    accurately reflect coastal conditions and scientific advances in
    understanding sea level rise.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, and I thank the witnesses for their
    testimony. I will now recognize Members for 5 minutes each for
    questions.
        Ms. Kiggans, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My first question is
    for Dr. Hein from VIMS.
        Thank you again for being here. Barrier islands, obviously,
    serve a critical role in protecting inland communities. Can you
    speak to some of the benefits of leaving this land undeveloped?
        And would the barrier islands be as effective, were they to
    be built up for commercial or recreational use?
        Dr. Hein. Thank you, Congresswoman. In short, no.
        There is a large difference between a built barrier island
    and one that is allowed to do as it wants. I gave the example
    before of the Virginia Eastern Shore, where these islands are
    moving at tens of feet per year in some cases. And that
    generally happens during large storms. Well, if you have a
    house that is built on the island, or you have one that is
    behind the island, that island wants to move underneath it, and
    the house doesn't move. At least not without a lot of time and
    effort and money.
        So, what happens is that house ends up on the front side.
    That house also then stops that process of the island naturally
    adjusting to the storms that occur, to changes in the rate of
    sea level rise. So, it slows the entire natural process down
    quite a bit, and makes the whole island system less resilient.
        What we could do is, you know, you can nourish beaches, you
    could harden the shoreline. But eventually, as sea level rises,
    those storms want to move those barriers landward. They are
    moving up a slope. That is what they do. That is how they have
    survived for 7,000 years. If you stop that from happening, the
    barrier is just going to drown from both sides. And that is the
    risk to many of our developed barriers around the country and
    world.
        Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you. And I read in your testimony that
    barrier islands on the Eastern Shore of Virginia are moving
    more than 20 feet toward land per year due to storm surges and
    erosion.
        So, folks on the Eastern Shore are already concerned with
    shoreline movement or sea level rise impacting their homes,
    businesses, and families. How does the movement of the barrier
    islands impact their effectiveness and what they should be
    doing?
        And what should we be thinking about as a 10, 20, or 30-
    year plan for science-based adaptive management of our barrier
    islands?
        Dr. Hein. Well, to start, I think that it is important to
    think about barrier islands or these coastal systems as two
    parts. There are two different shorelines that are moving. Mr.
    Stiles spoke very nicely of the wetlands side, where on the
    upland side marshes and wetlands want to move up into, on the
    Eastern Shore it is largely farmland, but some communities, as
    well.
        On the other side of it you have the open ocean piece,
    which is the barrier island migrating. Over time, yes, the
    barriers are moving so quickly that you are shrinking the back
    barrier lagoon, and it will be hundreds of years before those
    islands get anywhere near the mainland. That is good. They
    should be moving. The closer they are to the mainland, the more
    they can protect their marshes, they take the brunt of those
    storms, and they move with it. They take a hit, they step back,
    and then naturally rebuild their elevations.
        The challenge is on the other side, where we stop those
    marshes from moving upland. So, you have one side that is not
    moving and the other side of the island is moving ever closer,
    and that shrinks the whole ecosystem, reduces its services and
    anything from storing carbon to providing habitat for
    commercial fisheries. And that is where I think the real
    challenge is here, looking forward for the Eastern Shore, is
    the flooding of the upland, allowing that to happen, while
    letting the barriers do much of what they do, which is take the
    brunt of storms, regenerate, and keep trucking on.
        I will also note, though, that one of the challenges there,
    of course, is accelerated sea level rise. These processes are
    inevitable. Yes, climate change is, of course, happening. Sea
    level is, of course, rising. But beyond that, even if it were
    to stop tomorrow miraculously, these islands are going to
    continue to move. They haven't quite caught up to the rate of
    sea level rise today. So, let them.
        Mrs. Kiggans. Mr. Stiles, we have heard a lot today about a
    proposed coastal hazard pilot program. My concern with that is
    that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not fully remapped
    its existing System. So, would it not be better for the Service
    to fully grasp the needs of the existing System first before
    starting a new endeavor aimed at possibly expanding the System
    inland?
        Mr. Stiles. I think that some multi-tasking would be
    useful. It is going to take a while to figure out what to do.
    It has taken Virginia a long time. Under the leadership of
    former Natural and Historic Resources Secretary Strickler it
    has taken Virginia a long time to figure out how to approach
    this. We are still working it out. Those statutes that were
    passed, we are still trying to figure out how they are actually
    going to be implemented.
        I think you could do both. You could continue the mapping,
    but it is going to be a long conversation about how we are
    going to deal with the System in the future.
        Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you very much.
        I am out of time. I yield back.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mrs. Kiggans. The Chair recognizes
    Ranking Member Huffman for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do have a
    couple of questions for witnesses, but before I do that let me
    just pause and say how refreshing it is to be part of a hearing
    where we are having a conversation where a colleague across the
    aisle is asking thoughtful, science-based questions, and we are
    talking about the difficult trade-offs and policy choices that
    adaptive management impels us to make. It doesn't often happen
    in this Committee, the Natural Resources Committee, where it
    can sometimes feel like a fact-free, science-free zone. But
    this is good stuff, and I want to commend my colleague and the
    witnesses for a really important conversation. And you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Stiles, you have a lot of experience helping
    communities adapt to sea level rise. And with that in mind,
    could you share with us why it is so important to be proactive
    in identifying currently undeveloped areas for designation
    within the Coastal Barrier Resource System, as the pilot
    program in the Senate bill proposes?
        Mr. Stiles. The process that I was describing of the
    intertidal zone moving uphill is the big issue. Wetlands in our
    part of the world can move vertically about 2 feet a century.
    The rates of sea level rise we are seeing exceed that. And,
    therefore, the only way that they can get out of the way is to
    move uphill onto the fast land behind where the wetlands are.
        So, this is all new stuff. The steps that Virginia has
    taken, as I said, were first in the nation. And we are still
    trying to work it out. There is a lot of work that needs to be
    done. But the idea, basically, is trying to slow the
    development on the land behind so that the wetlands can move
    uphill. But when you do that, there are lots of things in the
    way like people, like roads, like everything else. So, it is
    going to take quite a long time to figure out the conflicts,
    the use conflicts, the conflicts between the public good of
    maintaining the wetlands and the private resources, the issues
    that came up in the Topsail bill, for example.
        So, I think it is essential that we begin to look at this
    now because, as Dr. Hein said, this system will move uphill.
        So, we have to identify places where it can move, where
    people can be moved out of the way to avoid the higher risk
    that is coming, things like what Maryland is doing with its
    mapping program, where it is beginning to map the migration
    corridors. I think that is all part of the solution.
        Mr. Huffman. And it sounds like this will inevitably
    present us with some inconvenient, difficult choices. But why
    is it important to begin to proactively use CBRA in terms of
    benefits to inland communities, coastal ecosystems, and the
    American taxpayers?
        Mr. Stiles. Well, I think the CBRA System is poised to
    examine these issues. It is a huge holding for the taxpayers, a
    resource for the people. And I think that it is a system that
    is going to see these impacts first. And I think that that is
    why we need to study it.
        It also helps to bring the resources of the Federal
    Government into this. For the longest time, it has been mostly
    local governments having to deal with it because they see the
    impacts right in their backyard. State government is beginning
    to deal with it, as I said, like the state of Virginia has
    done. But the Federal Government has, outside of a few examples
    like the joint land use studies that are taking place in
    Virginia or some of the examinations that were done by NASA
    with its facilities, it has 85 percent of its assets within 8
    feet of sea level rise, outside of a few isolated Federal
    examinations of this issue, there really hasn't been a
    concerted effort to look along the entire shoreline to figure
    out how we are going to do this. And that is where I think
    bringing the knowledge and expertise of the Federal Government
    into it along the whole reach of the shoreline would be very
    useful.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
        Mr. Strickler, there is some language in H.R. 2437 that I
    am concerned could open the door to a lot of litigation, could
    be problematic for Fish and Wildlife Service to interpret.
    Could you speak to that, please?
        Mr. Strickler. Thank you, Mr. Huffman. Yes, we have heard
    the stated intent of the legislation is to remove a significant
    amount of the developed area on North Topsail from the CBRS
    unit. However, there has been, since the time that the unit was
    included in the System, a lot of development and a lot of
    subdivision. So, it is unclear to us exactly how properties
    would be determined in or out. And I think there could be a lot
    of disagreement over that.
        Mr. Huffman. All right. I appreciate that.
        I yield back, thanks.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Congresswoman
    Hageman for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My bill, the Pilot
    Butte Power Plant Conveyance Act, as described in my opening
    statement, requires the Bureau of Reclamation to enter into
    good faith negotiations with the Midvale Irrigation District
    for the conveyance of the Pilot Butte Power Plant located in
    Pavilion, Wyoming. And as we have heard from our witnesses,
    this conveyance is a net positive for all parties involved.
        Before the project was mothballed in 2008, it was estimated
    that the cost needed to repair the facility was around $3
    million, and it was determined by the Bureau of Reclamation
    that it was no longer economical to operate. The Bureau now
    estimates that the cost of recovering the power plant through
    repairs is between $4.5 to $8 million, and as has been
    explained, this exchange is in the financial interest of both
    the United States and in the overall interest of Midvale
    Irrigation District's 940 water users.
        Mr. Lynn, do the water users within the Irrigation District
    have a vested interest in assuming responsibility of this
    project?
        Mr. Lynn. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. Yes,
    they are. They are in favor of gaining the ability to be able
    to produce power, as it has been a topic of discussion for the
    District and its users for several years.
        As the hydropower study that was done in 2016 indicates,
    there are several places on the District that would produce
    power due to the natural fall, the topography, drop structures,
    and whatnot, but none as beneficial as the power plant.
        Ms. Hageman. OK. Can you describe Midvale Irrigation
    District's preparedness to assume responsibility of title
    ownership on top of the maintenance and operation costs?
        Mr. Lynn. Yes, Congresswoman. Midvale is geared to self-
    perform a lot of the work there. We are a pretty unique family
    there. We do what it takes, most all the work necessary to
    remodel the power plant structurally, preparing for the next
    phase for consultants and vendors to analyze the hydrologic
    aspects of the attributes of the power plant and design the new
    generation equipment to maximize the CFS and head that is
    available.
        Ms. Hageman. OK. Mr. Lynn, both you and the Bureau have
    highlighted the benefit of divesting liability for Federal
    interests in water users. Aside from shifting the burden of
    cost from one party to another, why do you believe that this
    conveyance is so important to the state of Wyoming?
        Mr. Lynn. Congresswoman, thank you. Midvale is committed to
    do whatever is necessary to keep costs down regarding its
    service to our customers, therefore later on here to the state.
        Farmers and ranchers depend on the District for their
    livelihoods. Cost to remodel the power plant in-house would be
    minimal, compared to contracting it out. Once the power plant
    is ready to go on-line, the benefit of the power production to
    our customers would be seen in minimizing the cost of services
    that we provide.
        To Wyoming, the conveyance would set a precedent, I
    believe, with irrigation districts throughout the state to take
    the initiative in analyzing where they could produce power,
    utilizing their conveyances and natural topography.
        Conveying the Pilot Butte Power Plant to Midvale Irrigation
    District puts control and investment, our hearts and minds of
    the District and its constituents there locally. Self-
    sufficiency is Wyoming.
        Ms. Hageman. And one of the things we are seeing in Wyoming
    right now is that one of our largest utilities is seeking a 30
    percent increase in rates for our Wyoming citizens because of
    some of the decisions that they have made over the years in
    using unreliable energy resources. So, having the access to the
    hydrologic resources, as well as being able to be self-
    sufficient is extremely important at this time. Wouldn't you
    agree with that, Mr. Lynn?
        Mr. Lynn. Yes, ma'am. It is a timely situation with what we
    are seeing with the current plan.
        Ms. Hageman. Yes. Mr. Lynn, with the cyclical nature of the
    hydrologic situation in the West and increased vertical
    integration in power production in Wyoming, why is your project
    timely at relieving costs and burdens for water and power
    consumers?
        Mr. Lynn. Well, I think we just covered that. With the way
    things are going with the local power producer, I think that we
    would like to see some alternatives that are produced locally.
        Ms. Hageman. And this project would provide that?
        Mr. Lynn. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Hageman. All right, wonderful. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I echo the sentiment of Mr. Lynn, and this
    conveyance provides significant benefits to Wyoming and the
    Federal Government.
        I thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Ms. Hageman.
        And Dr. Murphy, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Dr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My comments will be in
    reference to H.R. 2437.
        Thank you, Mr. Leonard, for coming. I just wanted to ask
    you again to review why you think CBRA designation was
    incorrect in North Topsail.
        Mr. Leonard. Yes, Congressman, thank you. At the time the
    CBRA was enacted, there was a full complement of infrastructure
    within the town. We had roads, we had utilities, we had met all
    the requirements to be exempted from CBRA.
        The issue was once the mapping had to be done, there was a
    year to do it, and the mapping was done via aerial photography,
    and the aerial photography did not disclose the full complement
    of infrastructure that was on the ground at the time. At the
    same time the infrastructure was there, but the development in
    certain areas was not. And these two together were tied to the
    point where it should have been an either/or per the original
    CBRA regulations, but it was not. In the areas that there was
    development and infrastructure, those areas were left out of
    CBRA, but there was infrastructure in the remainder of the area
    of the town, which should have disqualified those areas from
    being placed into the CBRA System.
        Our town is no different than the other two towns on
    Topsail Island, Surf City and Topsail Beach. Those towns were
    left out of CBRA, and we are just asking to be removed from
    CBRA.
        Dr. Murphy. Approximately how many square miles?
        Mr. Leonard. I can't give you the square miles, sir, but we
    are looking at the total area of L06 is 5,865 acres, and we are
    asking for 590 acres of that 5,865 to be removed.
        Dr. Murphy. 590 acres?
        Mr. Leonard. Yes, sir, 590 acres. It is roughly 10 percent.
        Dr. Murphy. So, a really small amount of land that already
    had infrastructure in it.
        Mr. Leonard. Yes, sir, and was developed.
        Dr. Murphy. All right, thank you. I will get back.
        Mr. Strickler, have you ever been to the area in question?
        Mr. Strickler. Dr. Murphy, thank you for the question. I
    spent a lot of time on North Carolina's Outer Banks. It is a
    beautiful place and a unique part of the world. I was talking
    to Mr. Leonard earlier. I have not had the pleasure of visiting
    North Topsail.
        Dr. Murphy. All right. So, my district, I am very blessed.
    When I get to go home, I get to go to the beach. It is great. I
    have about 80 percent of North Carolina's beaches.
        So, is it common for the Fish and Wildlife Service to
    designate areas with a CBRA designation that already have
    infrastructure present?
        Mr. Strickler. Thank you for the question. When the Fish
    and Wildlife Service reviews a unit for inclusion or exclusion
    in the Coastal Barrier Resources System, they do a
    comprehensive review of whether or not the level of development
    and the level of infrastructure meet the requirements in the
    statute. When the level of development and infrastructure meets
    the requirements for exclusion, it is uncommon for a unit to be
    included in the System.
        Dr. Murphy. All right. So, as I am understanding, again,
    this was done aerially and not somebody on the ground, and I
    think it is important when we are dealing with the livelihoods
    of veterans, homeowners, people that just want flood insurance,
    that actually somebody who is going to be opposing this
    actually sees what they are talking about. It would be nice to
    have that. So, I don't think it is too much to ask for somebody
    to take a drive down there and take a look at it if you are
    going to oppose it.
        It seems like, if you already had infrastructure in place,
    that the designation is an error.
        They have created lands, I mean, they have created houses.
    They have a whole new development on there. All the folks in
    North Topsail are asking for 10 percent of this designation to
    allow individuals to get national flood insurance, to be able
    to get VA loans, not to push the other 90 percent out. They are
    not asking for much.
        And yes, I understand all about wetlands. Good lord, I have
    a Waters Conference every year. I am having that in 2 weeks to
    look at inland flooding, to look at water, sea level rise, to
    look all of these things. So, it is nothing that I don't know
    the science of. I know it very, very well. But in this
    instance, an error was made, and somebody just needs to admit
    it. The Federal Government makes those mistakes. OK? We can't
    just keep on saying, ``Well, no, we didn't make a mistake, we
    didn't make a mistake.'' I think the ask is genuine. I think it
    is very minimal, just that an error was made, that it be
    corrected.
        So, if infrastructure was already present in that time, an
    error was made by the Fish and Wildlife Service. So, I would
    say this to the members of the Committee. This is not a big
    lift. This is not a heavy lift. People are already there, 10
    percent, less than 600 acres. I really think the request should
    be granted. The Federal Government makes mistakes. We have made
    mistakes all during COVID, and this is another mistake. I would
    hope that the Committee would allow it to be corrected.
        With that, I actually just want to ask Mr. Hein one
    question.
        Mr. Bentz. I am sorry, but we are over time.
        Dr. Murphy. I am out of time, OK, I can't see a time thing.
    Well, thank you. With that, I will yield back.
        Mr. Bentz. I thank the witnesses for their testimony and
    the Members for their questions.
        The members of the Committee may have some additional
    questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
    these in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the
    Committee may submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5
    p.m. Eastern on Tuesday, October 3. The hearing record will be
    held open for 10 business days for these responses.
        If there is no further business, without objection, the
    Subcommittee stands adjourned.

        [Whereupon, at 11:11 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

                            Statement for the Record
                           U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
                           on H.R. 3415 and H.R. 4385

    H.R. 3415, Pilot Butte Power Plant Conveyance Act

        The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has constructed numerous
    dams, canals, and hydropower plants that provide water and power across
    the 17 western states. For most of these project facilities,
    Reclamation has transferred all or part of the responsibility for
    operation, maintenance, and replacement to a project beneficiary.
    Title, or ownership, to Reclamation facilities, however, remains with
    the U.S. Government unless Congress passes legislation directing
    otherwise.
        The transfer of title divests Reclamation of responsibility for the
    operation, maintenance, replacement, management, regulation of, and
    most of the liability for Federal interests in lands and project
    facilities, while providing non-Federal entities with greater autonomy
    and flexibility to manage the facilities.
        From 1995 through 2019, Reclamation conveyed title of 32 projects
    or parts of projects across the West pursuant to various acts of
    Congress. These title transfers generally have provided mutual benefits
    to both Reclamation and the non-federal entities involved. The title
    transfer process followed a framework that Reclamation and its partners
    collaboratively developed, but which required the passage of individual
    acts of Congress.
        In 2019 the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and
    Recreation Act (P.L. 116-9) was signed into law. Title VIII of this Act
    provides Reclamation with new authority to transfer title to certain
    eligible facilities to qualifying entities without separate and
    individual acts of Congress. Section 8002(3)(B) of P.L. 116-9 included
    provisions that excluded title transfer authority for certain
    facilities, including for any reserved works as of the date of
    enactment. Since enactment, title to 12 additional projects or parts of
    projects have been conveyed under this new authority. The term
    ``reserved works'' means any building, structure, facility, or
    equipment that is owned, operated, and maintained by Reclamation.
        The Pilot Butte Power Plant is a reserved work and is part of
    Reclamation's Riverton Unit, as incorporated into the Riverton Unit of
    the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program by the Act of September 25, 1970
    (Public Law 91-409). The Powerplant receives water through the Wyoming
    Canal and discharges water directly to the Pilot Butte Reservoir. The
    Wyoming Canal and Pilot Butte Reservoir are Reclamation facilities for
    which the operation and maintenance has been transferred to the Midvale
    Irrigation District (District) via contract with Reclamation.
        The Powerplant started generating power in 1925. The Powerplant was
    taken out of service in 1973 due to high operation and maintenance
    (O&M) costs as well as a deteriorating penstock. The penstock was
    replaced and the Powerplant was put back into service in 1990. From
    1990 through 2008, the Powerplant operated seasonally from mid-April
    through late September. In 2007, Reclamation estimated the cost of
    needed repairs to continue to operate the Powerplant to be
    approximately $3.2 Million. In 2008, the Powerplant was placed in a
    mothballed status (removed from service) because it was no longer
    economically viable to operate it. In 2016, the Wyoming Water
    Development Office estimated these repairs to cost between $4.4 and
    $8.3 Million.
        As a reserved works, the transfer to the Pilot Butte Power Plant
    and related facilities is not eligible under the authority granted to
    Reclamation and requires an act of Congress. H.R. 3415 would provide
    Reclamation with the authority to convey title of the Power Plant to
    the district, subject to the necessary leases, permits, rights-of-way,
    easements, and terms necessary to ensure: the title transfer would not
    result in an adverse impact on existing water or power delivery
    obligations, that it complies with all applicable federal and state
    laws, and that conveyance of these facilities is in the financial
    interest of the United States. As the facilities have been removed from
    service, transfer of the facilities would minimally reduce costs
    associated with ongoing operation and maintenance and would potentially
    eliminate costs associated with removal and demolition, as necessary.
        Section 3 further directs Reclamation to enter into good faith
    negotiations to enter into an agreement within two years with the
    District to determine and outline a framework for the terms of
    conveyance of the Power Plant. It requires a report to Congress, if
    conveyance is not completed within a year of enactment, outlining the
    status of the conveyance, any obstacles to completion, and the
    anticipated date of completion.
        Section 6 directs Reclamation to provide an equal share with the
    District for the administrative costs for the conveyance of the Power
    Plant to the District. It should be noted, under P.L. 116-9,
    administrative costs for conveyance are fully the requester's expense.
        The Department supports the conveyance of the Power Plant to the
    District, as outlined in H.R. 3415, and if enacted and subject to
    appropriations, Reclamation would work to negotiate an agreement that
    ensures the transfer is mutually beneficial to the United States and
    the District. The Department supports H.R. 3415 and looks forward to
    working with the bill sponsor to address any necessary technical edits.
    H.R. 4385, Drought Preparedness Act

        The West faces severe water reliability challenges due to climate
    change, persistent drought, and increasing water scarcity. The changing
    climate in the West highlights the need for thoughtful planning and
    work to ensure our infrastructure is more resilient and that planning
    for changes in land use are considered over the long-term.
    Reclamation's Drought Response Program is an important program by which
    Reclamation provides assistance for drought planning and mitigation.
    The Drought Response Program's authority is derived primarily through
    the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 (43 U.S.C.
    2211) as well as Title IX, Subtitle F of the Omnibus Public Land
    Management Act of 2009 (42 U.S.C. 10364(a), SECURE Water Act).
        The Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 (Act)
    is set to expire at the end of Fiscal Year 2023. If enacted, H.R. 4385
    would extend the authorities provided by the Act through 2028. With the
    Drought Response Program, Reclamation relies on the authorities
    provided by the Act for drought contingency planning and emergency
    actions. Reclamation is expected to reach the current cost ceiling $130
    million within the next year. If enacted, in order to implement the
    program through 2028, Reclamation would need an increase in the cost
    ceiling.
        Through the Act, Reclamation provides financial assistance on a
    competitive basis for applicants to develop drought contingency plans
    or to update existing plans. In general, the planning process is
    structured to help planners answer key questions on recognizing,
    understanding the impacts of, and determining how to protect themselves
    from drought. It also encourages an open and inclusive planning effort
    that employs a proactive approach to build long-term drought
    resiliency.
        The Act also allows for Reclamation to undertake emergency response
    actions under the Drought Response Program to minimize losses and
    damages resulting from drought, relying on the authorities in Title I
    of the Act. Emergency response actions are crisis driven actions in
    response to unanticipated circumstances. As defined within the Act,
    eligible emergency response actions are limited to temporary
    construction activities such as storage and conveyance, and temporary
    water purchases through contracts not to exceed 2 years. The
    construction of permanent facilities is not eligible under the Act.
        The Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 is an
    important authority for Reclamation to continue to respond to and
    mitigate the impacts of drought. Assuming the cost ceiling is increased
    in line with the extension, the Department fully supports the extension
    of the authorities provided in the Act through 2028 as outlined in H.R.
    4385 for drought contingency planning and emergency actions.

                                     [all]