[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 36 (Friday, March 15, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2195-S2197]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 1620. A bill to amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
to provide for the construction, operation, and maintenance of dredged 
material disposal facilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works.


             THE ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGE DISPOSAL ACT OF 1996

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Boxer in 
introducing the Environmental Dredge Disposal Act of 1996, a bill to 
establish a fair cost-sharing formula for the disposal of dredged 
material.
  Mr. President, under existing law, the Federal Government helps 
assume the cost of the disposal or dumping at sea of dredged material 
associated with operation and maintenance of Federal channels. However, 
the Federal Government does not provide similar assistance for other 
methods of disposal, even when these other methods are more beneficial 
for the environment. This inconsistency makes no sense, and threatens 
the economic viability of large and small ports throughout the country.
  My bill proposes to eliminate this inconsistency, and would ensure 
that the Federal cost-sharing formula related to disposal of dredged 
material applies regardless of where the dredged material is disposed. 
More technically, the bill amends the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 to make upland, aquatic, and confined aquatic dredged material 
disposal facilities associated with the construction, operation, and 
maintenance of a Federal navigation project for a harbor or inland 
harbor a general navigation feature of a project for the purpose of 
cost sharing. The bill includes safeguards to ensure that no single 
port receives a competitive advantage as a result of this bill.
  Mr. President, in 1824, Congress assigned responsibility for 
improving navigation in the still-young Nation's waterways to the 
Federal Government. Federal maintenance of a channel system has always 
been important for interstate and foreign commerce, and for national 
security. That remains true today. Approximately 95 percent of the 
Nation's import-export cargo travels on ships through American ports.
  Mr. President, dredging the channels of our Nation's ports, 
particularly the major load centers, or hubs, is not a discretionary 
item. It is essential. Similarly, it is essential that dredged 
materials be disposed of.
  Unfortunately, many ports are experiencing serious problems with 
respect to disposal. These problems have plagued Federal channels and 
Federal facilities, such as military marine terminals, as well as local 
and private terminals. Ports that face immediate and near-term disposal 
problems include Boston, New Jersey-New York, Baltimore, Houston, and 
Oakland. Many more ports will face disposal problems in the next 
century.
  Some ports, including New York Harbor, lack adequate disposal 
facilities, which has created great difficulty in obtaining Corps of 
Engineers and State dredging permits. The disposal capacity of many 
other ports is nearly full. This problem is likely to affect many more 
ports in the years ahead.
  For many ports with inadequate disposal facilities, disposing dredged 
materials in the ocean is not a viable option, because of sediments 
that do not meet ocean disposal standards. Other methods of disposal 
will have to be pursued. Yet the costs associated with these 
alternatives often are high. Given the national interests at stake, the 
Federal Government needs to share in the costs of all viable 
alternatives.
  Unfortunately, current law prevents such cost sharing in the case of 
facilities located on land. There is no real justification for this 
limitation. And without some modification of this law, many ports may 
well face a serious disposal crisis in the near future.
  Mr. President, let me take a moment to comment on the environmental 
implications of this matter. Many ports are located in estuaries and 
coastal areas that represent significant natural resources. I recognize 
that some might believe that the protection and enhancement of those 
resources is inconsistent with the operation of a busy port. However, 
that is not true. In the New York metropolitan region and the bay area 
of northern California, for example, both ports and natural resources 
coexist, and provide important economic benefits. In my view, Federal 
policy should seek to promote both port commerce and environmental 
resources. This bill would help, by making possible the construction of 
confined disposal facilities that would support development in an 
environmentally constructive manner.
  Mr. President, if commerce is to progress in this Nation, if import-
export trade is to increase, if our Nation is to benefit from 
international trade agreements, our infrastructure must be prepared to 
make the transportation of goods efficient and cost effective. As 
Transportation Secretary Federico Pena has acknowledged, the port 
dredging problem is a national transportation problem. Secretary Pena 
organized the Interagency Working Group on the Dredging Process to 
determine how to improve Federal performance in several areas, 
including interagency coordination, the regulatory process, and 
disposal issues. The final report to the Secretary said:

       Over the past two decades, a number of factors have 
     complicated the development, operation and maintenance of the 
     nation's harbors, particularly in the area of dredged 
     material management. These factors include increases in the 
     demands of commerce, rapid evolution of shipping practices . 
     . ., increasing environmental awareness and mounting 
     environmental problems affecting coastal areas and ocean 
     waters, heavy population shifts to coastal areas and a 
     general increase in non-Federal responsibilities in the 
     development and management of navigation projects. As a 
     result, dredged material management has often become a 
     contentious problem at all stages of harbor development and 
     operation. . . . Left unattended, these problems could cause 
     a crisis.

  The report specifically discussed the problem of an inconsistent 
dredged material management policy, which would be addressed by this 
legislation.
  I would note, Mr. President, that this legislation is supported by 
the American Association of Port Authorities, which represents more 
than 85 ports in 30 States.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues and the 
corps to move this legislation forward.

[[Page S2196]]

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be 
printed in the Record along with a letter signed by a number of 
organizations to Chairmen Chafee and Shuster expressing their support 
for equitable Federal cost sharing in the disposal of dredged material.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1620

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Environmental Dredge 
     Disposal Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES.

       Section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2211) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) Dredged Material Disposal Facilities.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, after the date of enactment of this subsection, the 
     provision of upland, aquatic, and confined aquatic dredged 
     material disposal facilities associated with the 
     construction, operation, and maintenance of all Federal 
     navigation projects for harbors and inland harbors (including 
     diking and applying dredged material to beneficial use and 
     other improvements necessary for the proper disposal of 
     dredged material) shall be considered to be a general 
     navigation feature of a project for the purpose of cost 
     sharing under this section.
       ``(2) Limitations on federal share of project costs.--
       ``(A) Funds not required for operation and maintenance.--No 
     funds comprising the Federal share of the costs associated 
     with the construction of a dredged material disposal facility 
     for the operation and maintenance of a Federal navigation 
     project for a harbor or inland harbor in accordance with 
     paragraph (1) that are eligible to be paid with sums 
     appropriated out of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund under 
     paragraph (3) shall be expended for construction until the 
     Secretary, in the Secretary's discretion, determines that the 
     funds are not required to cover eligible operation and 
     maintenance costs assigned to commercial navigation.
       ``(B) Maximum federal share for operation and 
     maintenance.--The Federal share of the costs of activities 
     described in paragraph (3) for a project shall not exceed 
     $25,000,000 for any fiscal year.
       ``(3) Operation and maintenance costs.--For the purposes of 
     section 210, eligible operation and maintenance costs shall 
     include (in addition to eligible operation and maintenance 
     costs assigned to commercial navigation)--
       ``(A) the Federal share of the costs of constructing 
     dredged material disposal facilities associated with the 
     operation and maintenance of all Federal navigation projects 
     for harbors and inland harbors;
       ``(B) the costs of operating and maintaining dredged 
     material disposal facilities associated with the 
     construction, operation, and maintenance of all Federal 
     navigation projects for harbors and inland harbors;
       ``(C) the Federal share of the costs of environmental 
     dredging and disposal facilities for contaminated sediments 
     that are in, or that affect the maintenance of, Federal 
     navigation channels and the mitigation of environmental 
     impacts resulting from Federal dredging activities; and
       ``(D) the Federal share of the costs of dredging, 
     management, and disposal of in-place contaminated sediments 
     and other environmental remediation in critical port and 
     harbor areas to facilitate maritime commerce and navigation.
       ``(4) Preference.--In undertaking activities described in 
     paragraph (3)(D), the Secretary shall give preference to port 
     areas with respect to which, and in accordance with the 
     extent that, annual payments of harbor maintenance fees 
     exceed Federal expenditures for projects in the port area 
     that are eligible for reimbursement out of the Harbor 
     Maintenance Trust Fund.
       ``(5) Applicability.--This subsection applies to the 
     provision of a dredged material disposal facility with 
     respect to which, and to the extent that--
       ``(A) a contract for construction (or for construction of a 
     usable portion of such a facility); or
       ``(B) a contract for construction of an associated 
     navigation project (or usable portion of such a project);

     has not been awarded on or before the date of enactment of 
     this subsection.
       ``(6) Amendment of existing agreements.--
       ``(A) In general.--Unless otherwise requested by the non-
     Federal interest within 30 days after the date of enactment 
     of this subsection, each cooperative agreement entered into 
     between the Secretary and a non-Federal interest under this 
     section shall be amended, effective as of the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, to conform to this subsection, 
     including provisions relating to the Federal share of project 
     costs for dredged material disposal facilities.
       ``(B) Application of amendment.--An amendment to a 
     cooperative agreement required by subparagraph (A) shall be 
     applied prospectively.
       ``(7) Effect on non-federal costs of other dredged material 
     disposal facilities.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     increase, or result in the increase of, the non-Federal share 
     of the costs of any dredged material disposal facility 
     required by the authorization for a project.''.
                                                                    ____

                                                February 26, 1996.
     Re action on a water resources development act.
     Hon. John Chafee,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
         Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bud Shuster,
     Chairman, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Gentlemen: Our nation's deep-draft commercial 
     navigation system is essential to U.S. trade, economic 
     development and national security objectives. It is critical 
     that Congress enact a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 
     in 1996 to ensure the continued capital investment in our 
     ports and waterways which is essential to the safe and 
     efficient movement of cargo in international and domestic 
     trade.
       Over 95% of U.S. international trade moves through U.S. 
     ports, and trade volumes are expected to triple by the year 
     2010. Shippers increasingly rely on larger vessels and just 
     in time delivery of goods while, at the same time, there is 
     public concern for the safe transit of these vessels. U.S. 
     navigation channels must be improved and maintained to meet 
     these demands.
       More than 90 percent of our ports require regular 
     maintenance dredging. These ports are diverse--they include 
     our largest container ports, as well as other ports that 
     principally handle such products as petroleum, steel, 
     automobiles and fruit. Because many U.S. export commodities--
     grain, coal, and forest products, to name a few--face tough 
     competition around the world, even marginal transportation 
     cost increases affect their marketability and consequently, 
     the nation's balance of trade. It is clear that dredging, 
     whether to maintain existing depths or to deepen channels to 
     meet the demand of the next generation of ocean carriers, is 
     as essential to our nation's commerce as maintaining and 
     improving our highways and railroads.
       However, for the first time since the passage of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986, Congress failed to enact a 
     biennial water resource bill in 1994, and did not live up to 
     its commitment to the federal/port partnership. If a 
     navigation project is economically justified and supported 
     financially by the local project sponsor throughout the 
     arduous planning process, the sponsor must be able to rely 
     on dependable water resource authorization legislation and 
     annual appropriations levels.
       In addition to project authorization, one important 
     provision that should be included in any WRDA bill would 
     clarify that the cost of dredged material disposal facilities 
     should be cost-shared at the same rate as other navigation 
     project elements. The Senate Environment and Public Works 
     Committee has already approved a WRDA bill, S. 640. The 
     Committee Report on S. 640 noted that: ``With respect to the 
     construction of dredged material disposal facilities, it is 
     apparent that cost-sharing inconsistencies do exist. Federal 
     and non-Federal cost-sharing responsibilities for dredged 
     material disposal vary from project to project, region to 
     region, and port to port depending on when the project was 
     authorized. In addition, current cost-sharing policies favor 
     open water disposal * * * [T]he Committee urges the 
     Administration to report possible solutions to the Congress 
     for consideration.''
       The Report of the Federal Interagency Working Group on the 
     Dredging Process also recommended this clarification of 
     federal cost sharing for disposal in order to level the 
     playing field in selection of disposal alternatives and to 
     facilitate the implementation of important navigation 
     projects and appropriate disposal options. As the federal 
     government mandates more restrictive environmental regulation 
     of dredged material disposal, it is appropriate that the 
     federal government, where it does not do so already, share 
     the costs to assure compliance with those environmental 
     mandates and to provide for sufficient and safe disposal 
     capacity.
       The undersigned organizations urge you to make water 
     infrastructure a top priority for your Committees this year. 
     Congress must enact a Water Resources Development Act in 1996 
     and continue the vital investment in our national water 
     resources and navigation infrastructure. Thank you.
           Sincerely,
         American Association of Port Authorities, American 
           Institute of Merchant Shipping, American Maritime 
           Congress, American Petroleum Institute, American Pilots 
           Association, American President Lines, Inc., American 
           Waterways Operators, Inc., Bay Area Planning Coalition, 
           Crowley Maritime Corp., Dredging Contractors of 
           America, Intermodal Conference of the American Trucking 
           Associations, International Longshoremen's Association, 
           International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, 
           International Council of Cruise Lines, Lake Carriers 
           Association, Maersk Line, Inc., Maritime Institute for 
           Research and Industrial Development, Matson Navigation 
           Company, Inc., National

[[Page S2197]]

           Association of Waterfront Employers, National Waterways 
           Conference, Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, 
           Propeller Club of the United States, Sea-Land Service, 
           Inc., Transportation Institute.
  Mrs. BOXER. Today I am joining with Senator Frank R. Lautenberg in 
introducing legislation that will not only bring balance in the 
economic burden sharing between our Nation's ports and the Federal 
Government but also will provide real improvements to our marine 
environments. Or, as one local editorial headline called it: ``Turning 
mush to marsh.''
  I am talking about providing real economic incentives to make upland 
disposal of dredged material feasible for our ports. In many cases, 
this disposal can be used to restore wetlands, particularly for the San 
Francisco Bay Delta system.
  The San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary is the largest and most 
significant estuary along the entire west coast of the Americas. 
Estuaries are one of the most productive types of ecosystems in the 
world. At the same time, they are one of the most degraded by human 
activities. Habitat losses, huge fresh water diversions, and 
pollution--more than 60 percent of the entire runoff from the entire 
State of California drains into the estuary--have significantly altered 
the ecosystem. Bay filling has vastly depleted this habitat resource.
  The bay area is also the center of a $5.4 billion-a-year economic 
engine providing 100,000 jobs relating to its role as a center of 
international maritime commerce.
  Concern over environmental degradation resulted in ``mudlock'' 
between our ports and the environmental community. Sensing the need to 
establish rational, affordable, and environmentally responsible 
dredging policies, in 1990 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water 
Quality Control Board, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission 
joined with navigation and fishing interests, the environmental 
community, and the public at-large to establish a comprehensive long-
term management strategy for bay area dredged material.
  One of their successes was the establishment of the Sonoma baylands 
demonstration project, a congressional authorized dredged disposal site 
cost-shared between the Federal Government and local agencies. This 
former tidal wetlands was drained for agricultural use during the last 
century. The 325-acre site has helped restore needed wetlands in the 
region and reverse their decline. In addition, it provides habitat for 
two endangered species--the California clapper rail and the salt marsh 
harvest mouse.
  But that was a one-time congressional demonstration project. We need 
to correct the underlying law that leaves local agencies with the full 
cost burden of establishing an upland site for disposal of dredge 
spoil.
  Every year an average of 6 million cubic yards of sediments must be 
dredged from shipping channels and related navigation facilities 
throughout the bay area, which is the home of the ports of Oakland, 
Richmond, San Francisco, and Redwood City. The San Francisco Bay 
Conservation and Development Commission has concluded that in-bay 
disposal sites cannot accommodate future dredging and disposal needs.
  The bay area's maritime industry is expected to need to dispose of 
about 300 million cubic yards of sediment over the next 50 years. Due 
to the growth of Pacific rim countries, export cargo moving through the 
west coast ports has doubled in the last 2 years. The entire 
maintenance dredging and channel deepening program provides the 
critical link for Pacific rim and world trade which contributes 
directly to our regional, State, and national economies.
  In 1994, the Federal Government permitted an ocean disposal site 
nearly 60 miles off shore and included costly ocean floor monitoring 
procedures. Annual disposal capacity is limited at this site. Even if 
seemingly a viable option, in some instances weather and wave 
conditions impede access of the barges to this offshore site and 
increases the cost. Dredge material, some of which could be used to 
restore wetlands, is lost.
  The creation of vital wetlands through the beneficial use of dredged 
material has proven to be highly popular in California.
  Several bay area sites, both publicly and privately owned, studied in 
the course of the long term management strategy show clear development 
potential for both beneficial use and confined disposal. However, the 
process by which the Federal Government and local agencies share the 
costs and other responsibilities of dredging and disposal projects 
creates many barriers to completion, because it does not reflect real 
environmental and economic realities.
  The Federal Government does not participate at all in upland 
disposal, while ocean disposal is cost shared by the Federal and State 
or local agencies. This inconsistency is prejudicial to those ports 
which have run out of aquatic disposal options and are forced to use 
upland disposal without any Federal financial assistance.
  The availability of dredged disposal capacity is a growing concern in 
many areas of the country. We need consistent Federal-local sponsor 
cost sharing across all dredged material disposal methods. Uplands 
disposal that promotes environmental restoration should be given 
priority consideration.
  That is why this bill is important. It would make the provision of 
upland, aquatic and confined aquatic, dredge material disposal 
facilities associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance 
of Federal navigation projects as a general navigation feature for the 
purpose of cost sharing.
  A consistent Federal policy that provides for cost-sharing upland 
disposal facilities is a ``win-win'' for the environment and the 
economy of California. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation 
and demonstrate that we can save the environment and boost our local, 
regional, and national economies at the same time.
                                 ______