[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]