[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 112 (Tuesday, September 12, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6387-H6388]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 12, 2006 (House)]
[Page H6387-H6388]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr12se06-107]                         



 
 COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM MAP REPLACEMENT RELATING TO GRAYTON 
                             BEACH, FLORIDA

  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill (H.R. 479) to replace a Coastal Barrier Resources 
System map relating to Coastal Barrier Resources System Grayton Beach 
Unit FL-95P in Walton County, Florida, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 479

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

     SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM 
                   MAP RELATING TO GRAYTON BEACH UNIT FL-95P IN 
                   WALTON COUNTY, FLORIDA.

       (a) In General.--The map described in subsection (b) 
     relating to the Coastal Barrier Resources System unit Grayton 
     Beach Unit FL-95P, located in Walton County, Florida, as 
     included in the set of maps entitled ``Coastal Barrier 
     Resources System'' referred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal 
     Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)), is hereby replaced 
     by another map relating to that unit entitled ``Grayton Beach 
     Unit FL-95P and Draper Lake Unit FL-96'' and dated ``July 24, 
     2006''.
       (b) Replaced Map Described.--The map replaced under 
     subsection (a) is subtitled

[[Page H6388]]

     ``COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM GRAYTON BEACH UNIT FL-95P 
     DRAPER LAKE UNIT FL-96'' and dated October 24, 1990.
       (c) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall keep 
     the maps referred to in subsections (a) on file and available 
     for inspection in accordance with the provisions of section 
     4(b) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 
     3503(b)).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Grijalva) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.


                             General Leave

  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 479 corrects several Florida mapping mistakes 
implemented in the enactment of the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 
1990. Under current law, only Congress can add or delete property from 
the Coastal Barrier Resources System. Under the bill, 20 acres of 
privately held land would be removed from the system, ensuring that the 
affected homeowners are eligible for Federal flood insurance in the 
future.
  We would be making this change because this property was mistakenly 
included within an Otherwise Protected Area unit. It was designated 
based on the faulty assumption that this property was included within 
the boundaries of the Grayton Beach State Park and that the land was 
undeveloped. In fact, a number of those lots were fully developed with 
homes constructed by 1983; and, therefore, this property does not 
qualify for inclusion in the system.
  With the Federal Flood Insurance Program experiencing a large number 
of claims, Congress should be cautious about providing access to 
additional beneficiaries. However, in this case, H.R. 479 satisfies the 
threshold of fixing legitimate mapping mistakes.
  In addition, the new corrected map will add almost 1,600 acres of 
State parkland that was inadvertently left out of the unit when it was 
created in 1990. The net effect of this technical correction is that we 
expand the system by 1,562 acres of fastland and wetland habitat.
  I would urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 479.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GRIJALVA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, this legislation has been championed by 
our colleague from Florida, Allen Boyd, without whose efforts it would 
not be on the floor today; and I want to thank him for that.
  The majority has already adequately explained the bill. I would only 
note that the expansion of this Coastal Barrier Resource Unit will 
significantly increase the total area of lands that will now become 
ineligible for Federal flood insurance.
  And because this region of the Florida panhandle is experiencing a 
frenzy of coastal development, this factor was a pivotal consideration 
in the committee's approval of H.R. 479.
  The net conservation benefit in this instance was considered 
sufficient to protect the integrity of this coastal barrier unit, 
despite the strong reservations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
to remove some small areas of private land from the existing unit.
  We on this side of the aisle do not object to this legislation.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
my bill, H.R. 479, which creates a new Coastal Barriers Resources Map, 
removing the Old Miller Place Subdivision from the Otherwise Protected 
Area. I would like to thank Mr. Pombo and the Resources Committee for 
their hard work and commitment to this bill.
  I will provide a little bit of background for my colleagues: Old 
Miller Place has been privately owned since the 1890s. The Miller 
family homesteaded it in 1903. The first residence was built in 1981 
and the fourth was completed in 1985. Six lots remained unbuilt by 1990 
because they were purchased for future retirement homes by their 
respective owners. In 2006, they lay bare as they await restoration of 
their right to build.
  Old Miller Place was platted and developed in 1979, 6 years before 
the State of Florida's land acquisition program joined Grayton Beach 
State Park with the southern and eastern boundaries of Old Miller Place 
in 1985. In 1990, a layer of Federal protection was overlaid on part of 
Grayton Beach State Park when Congress expanded the Coastal Barrier 
Resources System to include areas known as ``Otherwise Protected Areas 
(OPA).'' In the case of Unit FL-95P, the otherwise protected area is 
Grayton Beach State Park. At the time of its creation in 1990, OPA Unit 
FL-95P included only about half of the 2,238 acres of Grayton Beach 
State Park and the entire 6.4 acre private-property subdivision known 
as the Old Miller Place.
  Mr. Speaker, on paper this bill is a technical correction, but for 
the property owners in Old Miller Place Subdivision this bill means 
greater opportunity and freedom. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 
479.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my concern with 
two bills to be considered under the suspension of the rules today: 
H.R. 138 and H.R. 479. These two bills would remove land from the 
Coastal Barrier Resources System, CBRS.
  Created by the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982, CBRA, CBRS is a 
Reagan-era free-market conservation program that denies Federal 
subsidies to development in certain coastal areas. It was created with 
three goals: to reduce risk to people and property, to discourage 
development in ecologically sensitive coastal barrier islands, and to 
save taxpayers from having to pay for building and rebuilding in high-
risk areas. The program included 450,000 acres of coastal barrier 
islands in 1982 and was expanded to nearly 1.3. million acres in 1990. 
A unique program, CBRA doesn't preclude development; it just ensures 
that the Federal Government does not subsidize construction in 
inherently risky, environmentally fragile areas. This has been a highly 
successful program: a 2002 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report 
estimated that the CBRS will save taxpayers more than $1.2 billion by 
2010. In addition, at a time when our Nation has been losing our 
precious, fragile coastal ecosystems at an alarming rate to both 
development and coastal erosion, this program has discouraged 
development in those areas.
  I believe that Congress should be working to expand this highly 
successful program and using its free-market approach as a model for 
other legislation. This is why I am disappointed that during my time in 
Congress I have only seen us moving in the wrong direction. The program 
has been slowly experiencing death by a thousand cuts. It has been more 
than 15 years since Congress added land to the system, and each 
Congress brings another set of technical corrections that remove 
acreage from the program. Even though most of these ``boundary 
adjustments'' are small, much of the land is ecologically significant.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me during the next session of 
Congress in looking for ways to improve and expand federal programs to 
discourage development in ecologically sensitive and hazardous areas. 
Unfortunately, it appears that we have chosen to observe the 
anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, a painful reminder of the dangers of 
development in disaster-prone areas, by weakening a program that has 
been proven to save lives, money, and the environment.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional 
speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 479, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________