[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 41 (Friday, April 15, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 15, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                     COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES ACT

                                 ______


                         HON. TILLIE K. FOWLER

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 14, 1994

  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced a bill to make 
minor amendments to correct errors in the Coastal Barrier Resources Act 
[CBRA]. This bill is limited to minor technical changes of certain 
coastal barrier units in Florida.
  When Congress enacted the CBRA in 1982, it established the Coastal 
Barrier Resources System [CBRS], consisting of undeveloped coastal 
barriers located on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States. 
The Act prohibited the Federal Government from offering Federal flood 
insurance to properties included within the CBRS. After a process 
involving aerial photography and on-site inspections, the Department of 
the Interior [Interior] designated ares that were both a coastal 
barrier and undeveloped. Land qualified as undeveloped, if less than 
one building existing per five acres of developable land. Even if less 
than one structure existed, Interior considered the land developed if 
it contained infrastructure, such as vehicle access, reasonable 
availability of water supply, a wastewater disposal system, or 
electrical service.
  In 1990, Congress adopted the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act [CBIA] 
which substantially increased the size of the system. Again, Interior 
recommended additions to the system based on the extent of development 
of the land. The CBIA also established, for the first time, units of 
otherwise protected areas, defined as undeveloped coastal barriers 
within the boundaries of Federal or State-owned property or held by 
organizations for wildlife refuge or sanctuary, recreational or 
resource conservation purposes.
  Unfortunately, when Congress designated land to be included in the 
units, it made some mistakes in drawing the boundaries. This bill 
removes a small amount of land, less than 350 acres of a total 1.3 
million acres in the system, to correct these problems. In some cases, 
a small parcel of land was mistakenly designated as undeveloped coastal 
barrier within the system even though the owner had made substantial 
investments in local or State approvals, roads, utility systems, or had 
partially or completely developed the land prior to its designation. In 
other cases, private property was mistakenly included in an otherwise 
protected area, a designation that should only have been made for land 
owned by Federal or State governments or by conservation organizations.

  The exclusions cover nine Florida congressional districts, and each 
House member representing these districts has cosponsored this bill. 
The purposes for which the Coastal Barrier System was created were 
sound. However, under these very unique circumstances, the act should 
be amended. Our bill meets the following standards:
  First, the bill affects land in a single State;
  Second, a bipartisan delegation from the State supports the bill;
  Third, in each district in which land is affected, the member 
supports the bill;
  Fourth, the total affected acreage is small; and
  Fifth, each exclusion is warranted based on the criteria originally 
used for designating the units: Either there was one structure per 5 
acres of developable land, or the land was partially or fully developed 
at the time of its inclusion in the Coastal Barrier System.
  Under these narrow circumstances, Congress should be able to make 
minor technical adjustments to the units to ensure that equity is 
served.
  Four of the bill's corrections affect land in my district. Each is 
justified under the bill's criteria.
  In Butler Beach, a community on Anastasia Island in St. John's 
County, approximately 60 acres of single and multifamily homes and 
businesses were incorrectly included in the Coastal Barrier Resources 
System in 1990. At the time of its inclusion, the community had 
existing homes, electric and water utilities, roads and commercial 
businesses. This neighborhood borders a State park, which was included 
as an otherwise protected area in the CBRA amendments of 1990. 
Unfortunately, Congress misdrew the line of the otherwise protected 
area, mistakenly capturing this historic developed community.

  In an area known as Carcaba Road, three private homes built in 1955, 
1956 and 1971, the Seaside of Vilano Condominium complex completed in 
1983 and a commercial area containing a recreational vehicle park and 
campground which were built prior to 1982, were mistakenly included in 
Unit P04A when the CBRS was established in 1982. These individual 
residential and commercial properties, which total less than 8 acres, 
should be excised from the CBRS for equitable reasons.
  In Porpoise Point at Vilano Beach, 41 lots on less than 10 developed 
acres were mistakenly included in the CBRS in 1982. At the time of 
inclusion, a water treatment facility on the affected property was 
fully constructed. one private residence was completed. The community 
had paved roads and electrical utilities.
  In Summer Haven a beachfront residential community in St. John's 
County, located on a narrow strip of fastland between the Matanzas 
River to the west and the Atlantic Ocean to the east, was included in 
the CBRS in 1982. At the time of its inclusion, the eastern section of 
Summer Haven had significant residential development dating back to 
1930. The bill excludes eight residences on less than 7 acres which 
were under construction by October 1983.
  These properties, as well as the others reflected in the bill, should 
be excluded from the CBRS. Congress did not intend to include land in 
the system which had been partially or fully developed when the law was 
enacted. These minor technical corrections address these unique 
circumstances.

                          ____________________