[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 53 (Thursday, April 15, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H2595-H2609]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLEAN ESTUARIES ACT OF 2010
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1248 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4715.
{time} 1404
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4715) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
reauthorize the National Estuary Program, and for other purposes, with
Mr. Cuellar in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) each will control 30 minutes.
[[Page H2596]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) and the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) deserve very special recognition and appreciation
for their collaborative work taking the lead on this legislation to
bring new focus and new energy and new legislative authorities to the
National Estuary Program under the Clean Estuaries Act of 2010.
Without that concerted effort, we would be losing an extraordinary
opportunity to protect and to restore the Nation's estuaries, among our
most valuable natural resources.
This legislation was approved by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure by voice vote. We have solid support on both sides of
the aisle on a bill that was carefully crafted over many months by
participation, input, and recommendations from both sides, all of which
suggestions have been incorporated into this final legislative product.
Estuaries are very unique bodies of water. They are the places where
fresh and salt water meet, the places where new forms of life are
created, not just in the United States but all throughout the world.
Estuaries are critical mixing points for the basic ingredients of life,
including new life itself. Estuaries are the most ecologically diverse,
the most economically productive natural resource areas on our entire
planet.
Estuaries and their associated coastal resources are major economic
forces, as well, for our country. Commercial and recreational fishing
annually accounts for $185 billion in revenue, 2 million direct jobs.
Commercially and recreationally important fish and shellfish species--
striped bass, shad, salmon, sturgeon, shrimp, crabs, lobster, clams,
oysters, muscles, and bay scallops--all depend on the estuary for
stages of their life cycle.
Estuaries are habitat for three-fourths of all of the commercial fish
catch and 80-90 percent of the recreational fish catch. And that is
true not just for the fresh and salt water meeting places of estuaries,
but also for the riverine and lake meeting places of estuaries on the
Great Lakes.
Beyond fishing, estuaries produce significant economic value for our
fellow citizens in tourism, energy production, navigation, cultural and
recreational opportunities, boating, fishing, swimming, surfing,
birding. Ports and harbors are located in our estuaries, including our
ports of Duluth Superior, which I share with my dear friend and
colleague from across the water, Mr. Obey, in northwestern Wisconsin/
northeastern Minnesota.
The University of California and the Ocean Foundation have reported
that, annually, beach going generates $30 billion of economic value,
and wildlife viewing generates up to $49 billion, also, in economic
value.
But, unfortunately, estuaries, by definition, are downstream. Each
estuary is the repository for all of the pollution discharged into the
rivers and other bodies of water that drain into estuaries from
upstream. As the pollution loading increases, the estuary, the
repository of those pollution deposits, deteriorates. The water becomes
degraded. The animal and plant communities suffer. Chesapeake Bay is a
powerful example of that degrading and deterioration. Only 1 percent of
the historical oyster population remain in Chesapeake Bay.
An impaired estuary is bad for commercial and recreational fishing,
results in depleted fisheries, decreased tourism revenues, and
deteriorated property values. In addition, because of deterioration of
the estuary and the borderland around it, we've seen increased
flooding, shoreline erosion, damaged infrastructure, particularly when
storms occur, which happens every year.
The Federal Government has a number of authorities at its disposal
with which to control water pollution, and typically we have used a
permit-based system to regulate pollution discharge into our waters.
The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act provided a new authority in
the National Estuary Program. We are reauthorizing that program today
in this bill. It's a nonregulatory program. It includes 28 separate
estuaries, and each of these estuary initiatives is run by a non-
Federal entity. Some are run by States, others by nongovernmental
organizations, and a few others by universities.
A central feature of each program is a management plan developed on a
consensual basis; not a top-down, not imposed, but a cooperative,
inclusive initiative where all elements of government and private
sectors and, sort of, stakeholders--a term I don't particularly like,
but that's a good inclusive term covering all of those who have a share
or a responsibility in the watershed--all develop a bottoms-up process
to manage the discharges into and the use of the estuary. It has been
very popular and it has been also very effective in improving the
health of our estuaries.
This bill does four things: increased transparency and accountability
for each of the estuary programs; increased Federal coordination in
restoration, protection of the estuaries; third, programmatic changes
to the natural estuary program; and, fourth, increasing the
authorization level for the program from $35 million to $50 million.
Not very much. Not very much especially considering the erosion of the
value of the dollar over the years since this program was established.
We set the minimum level of $1.25 million a year for each of the 28
approved estuaries. The program was last authorized in 2000 and erosion
of the dollar would have required an increase over those years to an
estimated $44 million. We take it just a little bit higher to $50
million in order to account for other estuaries that are important that
may be added in the coming management of this program.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4715 reauthorizes the National
Estuary Program found in section 320 of the Clean Water Act and adds
some important accountability provisions. These improvements require
performance measures and goals in order to track implementation of
management plans for estuaries. The EPA will evaluate every 4 years and
report on the implementation of each management plan. In addition,
after the EPA evaluates and reports on a plan, each management
conference will be required to update their plans.
I note that H.R. 4715 increases the authorized level of funding by 43
percent from $35 million per year to $50 million a year. The average
appropriation over the past 5 years for this program has been only
$26.8 million. The President's recent budget requests $27.2 million.
While I support the National Estuary Program and improvements made
here in H.R. 4715, I know many of my colleagues, as well as myself, are
concerned about increasing authorized levels of spending for programs
when Congress has not been able to fund the program close to its
current authorization.
{time} 1415
Certainly in our current economic crisis we should carefully weigh
any proposed increase in authorization levels. We must also consider
the importance to estuaries. They are the nursery grounds for much of
the planet's sea life and the source of the seafood that we enjoy. They
are a unique habitat for a unique group of fish and wildlife.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to express my
great appreciation to our subcommittee chair, Ms. Johnson of Texas, who
has done a superb job of holding the hearings that led up to the
creation of this legislation and bringing together the parties on both
sides of the aisle; Mr. Boozman for his splendid participation in the
deliberations of the subcommittee and then at the full committee level;
and also my great appreciation to Mr. Mica, the ranking member of the
full committee, with whom I have a splendid partnership in all of the
work of our committee.
Before I recognize and yield time to Ms. Johnson, I just wanted to
say, it's true, as the gentleman from Arkansas pointed out, that the
funding level has been well below the new authorization we propose, and
I know these are tight budgetary times. Our job as an authorizing
committee is to set what is the reasonable, responsible level of
funding for programs under the jurisdiction of our committee, set that
forth, put it
[[Page H2597]]
into law, and then we will have to fight with the rest of the budget
for their fair share of the funding level.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself 30 additional seconds.
But if we don't raise that level from time to time to keep pace with
inflation, keep a target out there, then they will continue to be
underfunded. At least they can go in and compete and advocate with
other Federal Government programs for the amount of funding and have to
justify themselves to do that.
And, furthermore, we have a half dozen programs that have a poor
rating. The accountability provisions of that bill are targeted to
raise their level of performance and to hold them up to public
scrutiny. And I think that justifies us--and also they haven't had the
funding level they have needed to do the right job. So if we believe in
the program, we believe that estuaries are important for new forms of
fish and shellfish and aquatic life, we ought to protect them and
enhance----
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself 30 additional seconds.
Then we need to increase the funding level but also increase their
accountability, also increase their responsibility to the public.
That's, I think, a very important and new initiative in this
legislation.
I now yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie
Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I thank my committee chairman.
I rise in very strong support of H.R. 4715, the Clean Estuaries Act
of 2010.
Estuaries are the bodies of water that receive both freshwater from
rivers and saltwater from the sea. The mix of water makes a unique
environment that is extremely productive in terms of its ecosystem
values. Estuaries are rich in plant life, coastal habitat, and living
species. The ecological productivity of these regions translates
directly into important economic productivity. Government studies have
found that estuaries provide habitat for 75 percent of the U.S.
commercial and 80 to 90 percent of the recreational fishing catches.
Perhaps the central problem in the protection and restoration of
estuaries is that they ultimately lie downstream from all. Everything
that enters the smallest stream, tributary, or headwater in a watershed
eventually runs into its respective estuary, impacting, in some way,
all the biological elements of that system and all of the commerce that
revolves around that estuary.
To address estuary impairments properly, we cannot look to the
Federal Government alone. Indeed, we cannot necessarily look to the
Federal Government as the lead. Instead, proper watershed management
and estuary protection must be a process that involves all levels of
government and all manner of stakeholders.
Today's legislation, the Clean Estuaries Act of 2010, provides the
resources and means to do just that. As the chair of the Subcommittee
on Water Resources and Environment, the subcommittee charged with
primary jurisdiction for protective water quality, I am pleased to
support this bill. This legislation increases the authorization for
appropriations, allows for increased and improved Federal coordination,
increases accountability, and includes some necessary programmatic
changes.
The increase in authorized appropriation levels will not only provide
more resources to localities and organizations on the ground, it will
also enable more communities and estuaries to be involved in this
important national program.
I am well aware of the effectiveness and popularity of these
nonregulatory, community-based programs. We should be seeking to
encourage the use of these types of programs in order to address
problems in a grassroots fashion. In this sense, by making cleaner
estuaries, we hope to achieve healthier communities and stronger
economies through collaborative processes. I ask all Members of this
Chamber to join me in supporting communities and estuaries through the
passage of this bill.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might desire to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Clean
Estuaries Act.
I want to particularly thank Chairman Oberstar for his continued
leadership and for moving so very quickly on this important
legislation. I would also like to thank Chairwoman Eddie Bernice
Johnson, Mr. Mica, and Mr. Boozman for their help on this very
important issue as well. Finally, I would like to thank Mr. Bishop for
his leadership and once again allowing me to join with him on an issue
that we both find important and that we can make a difference with on a
critical bill to keep our waters clean and to do this for future
generations.
As we have heard, the bill would authorize the National Estuary
Program for another 5 years, allow the program to expand protections to
other watersheds and provide--and I think this is very important--
greater accountability on how taxpayer money is spent, something that
we should be doing more of. The bill will improve transparency, also
something very important, by establishing periodic reviews of
management plans and by requiring partners to demonstrate results,
something, again, that is very important that we see what the results
are.
Partners that fall out of compliance with their plans will lose grant
funds, and that's as it should be, because they should have to produce
results. These changes will improve the National Estuary Program and
enhance the protection of our Nation's estuaries while ensuring that
the taxpayer is getting a strong return on investment.
In my district, the Delaware estuary is home to the second largest
concentration of migrating shorebirds in the Western Hemisphere, which
is pretty incredible when you think about it, as well as dozens of
protected species and the largest population of horseshoe crabs in the
world. The estuary is also home to over 5 million people and some of
the largest refineries and chemical manufacturers on the east coast.
The group charged with understanding how to manage the demands of
these two forces is the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary. As one of
the 28 designated NEP organizations, the Partnership has done an
absolutely outstanding job, a tremendous job, to not only protect and
enhance the Delaware estuary but also to raise the public awareness
about the need to act responsibly and care for this unique ecosystem.
I want to commend the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary and the 27
other partnership organizations that have made the National Estuary
Program so successful, and I urge all Members to support H.R. 4715.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) who coauthored this bill with the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Let me start by thanking Chairman Oberstar
for his unwavering commitment to clean water issues, and we also thank
Chairwoman Johnson for her leadership.
Finally, let me thank my good friend, Congressman LoBiondo, for
sponsoring this legislation with me. Congressman LoBiondo and I have
worked together on several issues of mutual benefit to our constituents
over the years. I think we have formed a very nice partnership.
To those of us on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, it
sometimes feels as if we are part of the last remaining bastion of
bipartisanship in this institution, and I am always heartened by the
way our committee works closely with each other to produce initiatives
that improve our infrastructure, our environment, and the lives of the
American people. I appreciate the way our committee has moved forward
very quickly on this important legislation.
My district encompasses 300 miles of coastline and includes two of
the 28 estuaries of national significance, the Long Island Sound and
Peconic Bay. I am very proud to represent some of this country's most
popular and beautiful beaches and precious water bodies. Maintaining
coastal estuarine health is an integral objective toward preserving the
Nation's environment
[[Page H2598]]
and sustaining the economies of our coastal States.
The Clean Estuaries Act of 2010 reauthorizes the popular and highly
effective National Estuary Program originally designated as section 320
of the Clean Water Act and makes four primary changes to the program.
First, the bill increases the accountability for approved estuary
programs by requiring evaluation and updating management of their plans
on a periodic basis. This requirement increases transparency and
encourages adaptive management of the programs by incorporating
evaluation results into the period management plan updates.
Secondly, approved programs must identify vulnerabilities and impacts
due to climate change and prepare adaptation responses as well as raise
public awareness of the issues facing the health of estuaries and
performance measures and targets.
The third important improvement to the program is provisions to
enhance Federal agency coordination. As many Federal agencies oversee
activities that impact estuaries, our bill requires they participate in
the management planning process and incorporate local priorities when
practicable.
Finally, authorization is increased from $35 million to $50 million
per year and requires that each program approved receive a minimum of
$1.25 million. This increase in authorization allows the program to
keep pace with inflation and provides for the entry of new programs
into the NEP program where 38 sites have expressed interest in the past
to become an approved program.
Our coastal areas support more than 28 million jobs in the United
States, and commercial and recreational fishing in these areas generate
roughly $185 billion in sales and support nearly 2 million jobs. In
fact, estuaries produce more food per acre than the most productive
farmland.
Approximately 75 percent of commercial fish species depend on coastal
areas for their primary habitat, spawning grounds, and nursery areas.
In my district, the Long Island Sound produces over $5.5 billion in
revenue for State and local economies in the tourism, fishing, and
boating industries each year.
Setting aside the obvious and vital role that estuaries play to
environmental ecosystems, the economic benefits of estuaries alone are
reason enough to improve upon the investments Congress has made on
behalf of the American people. Estuaries are proven job creators and
provide a rate of return rarely seen on Wall Street.
Let me once again thank Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica,
Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Boozman, Congressman LoBiondo, and
both majority and minority staffs for their hard work and dedication to
this issue.
I hope my colleagues agree with the merits of this legislation. I ask
for their vote today on H.R. 4715, the Clean Estuaries Act.
{time} 1430
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I do want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) for the very positive changes
in the bill of accountability and transparency.
Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve. We don't have anymore
speakers.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support H.R. 4715, the Clean
Estuaries Act of 2010. The reauthorization obviously provides
opportunities to clean up our Nation's waterways.
I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Boozman and the
other cosponsors on a bipartisan basis. This is a good example of how
we work together.
In California, we have a lot of challenges with our own waterways. A
persistent degradation of the largest estuary on the west coast is
California's San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River
Delta system. Unfortunately, in my opinion, two flawed biological
opinions focus solely on exported water to the valley and southern
California for the decline in this important estuary for both the bay
and the delta, ignoring other significant contributing factors.
Meanwhile, urban centers continue to pollute this bay-delta with
toxic runoff, waste discharged from sewage facilities, refineries, city
streets and power plants, significantly degrading the ecosystem and
putting water supply to the valley and to southern California at risk.
This single-minded view has resulted in the loss of jobs and endangered
livelihoods of farmers, farm workers and farm communities in the San
Joaquin Valley who rely on that water to grow half the Nation's fruits
and vegetables.
Enough is enough. It's time for other regions of California to share
in the responsibility for the decline of water quality and fisheries.
Playing the blame game and pointing fingers at our valley's economy and
some of the hardest working people in the country will not solve our
water crisis in California; however, working together will. Step one is
reducing and preventing the longstanding pollution that is threatening
the Sacramento-San Joaquin River systems and our region.
Passing this measure will help our Nation's estuaries, and we must do
more. I want to commend, once again, the chairman and the cosponsors of
this measure and look forward to continuing to work with them.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps), who has made a splendid contribution to this
bill, and thank her for her contribution.
Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Chairman Oberstar, for recognizing me.
I rise today to express my support for H.R. 4715, the Clean Estuaries
Act, a bipartisan bill to reauthorize and make improvements to the
National Estuary Program.
I wish to thank my colleagues, Tim Bishop and Frank LoBiondo, for
introducing this bill. We each represent coastal districts that are
home to amazing estuary systems of great importance to our communities.
In my district, the Morro Bay National Estuary is an ecological
treasure. Lagoons and wetlands that were once common along the southern
California coast are now nearly all filled and developed, but the Morro
Bay Estuary has survived largely thanks to local efforts and now the
support of the estuary program.
Like other national estuaries, the one in Morro Bay provides vital
habitat for birds and fish. It is an important stopover for more than
150 species of migratory birds and it acts as a nursery for more than
75 percent of commercial fish species right in the immediate area.
Since the Morro Bay Estuary was incorporated into the national
program in 1995, the inspiring team of local staff and volunteers has
spearheaded numerous efforts to preserve and restore the estuary. I
particularly want to commend former program director Dan Berman,
interim director Mike Multari and his staff, as well as the Bay
Foundation of Morro Bay. Their accomplishments over the years are a
reflection of the strong partnerships and community support that define
the Morro Bay National Estuary Program. For example, partnering with
local ranchers, the hardworking team in Morro Bay has installed
riparian fencing along nearly 75,000 feet of creek to limit cattle
access. This has protected water quality and improved habitat on seven
creeks leading to the estuary.
The estuary program has also been a source of funding for the city of
Morro Bay's efforts to remove derelict marine vessels before they
pollute local waters and damage habitat. And the Estuary Nature Center
helps the public to understand the estuary's importance to water
quality and conservation.
Mr. Speaker, estuaries are among the richest habitats known on the
Earth, providing immeasurable economic and ecological benefits, but
they are threatened by climate change, by pollution, and other human
activities. The Clean Estuaries Act helps to combat these problems and
improves the efficiency of our National Estuary Program.
First, the bill requires that each approved estuary program be
evaluated every 4 years and the results be publicly released. Second,
the bill increases Federal attention to local priorities and requires
that Federal agencies participate in planning and coordinating the
implementation of the site's own management plan.
[[Page H2599]]
Third, the bill requires that estuaries identify and plan for
vulnerabilities to climate change.
And, finally, the bill increases the program's annual authorization
to $50 million.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you.
This modest funding increase will strengthen the capacity of our
existing estuaries to protect these critical coastal and marine
resources; and the proposed funding increase will allow for the
responsible expansion of the program to incorporate new regions that
are not currently served in the NEP.
Mr. Chairman, we are at a critical juncture for our ocean and coastal
resources, and the National Estuary Program is a vital part of that
network. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to protect
some of our Nation's most valuable and treasured natural resources, our
national estuaries.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to express my
great appreciation to the gentlewoman from California for her thorough
elucidation of the specific benefits, point by point, of the estuary
program in her Morro Bay area.
I now yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer), a refugee from the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the chairman for his courtesy and keeping me
in his thoughts.
I rise in strong support of this outstanding piece of legislation.
The National Estuary Program has been funding work around the country
for 20 years to monitor and restore estuaries of national significance.
It is really, I think, extraordinarily positive for us to hear the
message repeated today here on the floor about the importance, the
scope, the significance, and the progress that has been made.
I have a special interest in one area in Oregon and Washington; the
Lower Columbia River Estuary has been part of the program since 1995.
This stretches 146 miles from the Bonneville Dam to the mouth of the
Pacific Ocean. It supports hundreds of species of fish and wildlife and
thousands of people's economy and their quality of life. It is the
largest river in the Pacific Northwest, supplying fishermen with jobs,
serving as a recreational resource, and providing power through the
Pacific Northwest.
I have been privileged to work for the Lower Columbia River Estuary
Partnership, which heads our local estuary program. It is an
unparalleled bi-State, public and private partnership involving
collaborative efforts among key Federal partners, including EPA, NOAA,
USGS, the Army Corps of Engineers. They work with government at all
levels as well as a broad array of stakeholders that address these many
challenges facing the estuary from habitat degradation, to wetland
loss, to endangered species, to toxic contaminants. This is a model
non-regulatory, community-based program that gets results. National
Estuary Partners focuses on on-the-ground activities and involving
local communities with technical support and base funding coming from
the Federal Government.
The accomplishments in the Columbia are impressive. The partners have
restored 2,600 acres of habitat, opened more than 53 miles of stream,
completed toxic and conventional pollutant water quality monitoring,
and engaged the public in innovative cleanup efforts around the region
such as ``drug take back'' days and working with volunteers to remove
invasive plants.
There are many challenges remaining in the Lower Columbia, and this
legislation will provide important funding to further progress there
and around the country. Each local estuary also leverages National
Estuary Partnership funds. In 2009, in our community, we were able to
bring in $14 for each dollar that was provided by the Federal
Government. In addition to restoring the ecosystem, these dollars
create jobs for construction, design, contractors, engineers,
biologists, hydrologists, builders and educators, family-wage jobs in
the community. And beyond today's economic impact, the restored area
will support the recovery of a commercial fishing industry that was
reduced 90 percent in the course of 20 years.
Importantly, this legislation will also, for the first time, open the
door to other estuaries to participate in the program. While funding
goes to all estuaries, it will have benefits for the entire country.
You have heard here on the floor repeatedly that healthy estuaries mean
a healthy national economy. They cover a huge portion, 13 percent, of
the land area of the United States where half the gross domestic
product is produced, and almost 43 percent of the population.
These coastal areas provide tens of millions of jobs, which means
more people employed if we have healthy estuaries. It provides fresh
seafood, it provides habitat for 75 percent of the United States
commercial fish catch, and 80 to 90 percent of the recreational fish
catch.
These are also prime destinations for tourism. In any given year, 10
percent of the population will visit coastal Florida, 12.5 percent will
visit coastal California, and every coastal State will host over 1
million out-of-state visitors.
The benefits of clean and healthy estuaries are multiple. I want to
thank my colleagues on the committee for this outstanding work and look
forward to its support.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself 10 seconds to thank the gentleman from
Oregon for his constant attention to the work of our committee and to
the water issues as well, and for his splendid presentation.
I now yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland,
a member of the committee, Ms. Edwards, who has worked diligently as a
guardian of the Chesapeake Bay Estuary.
Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Thank you especially to the leadership of
Chairman Oberstar, Mr. Boozman, especially to our chairwoman of our
Water Resources Committee, Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, and to our
two leaders here, Mr. Bishop and Mr. LoBiondo.
I rise today in support of the Clean Estuaries Act, H.R. 4715,
because I have seen firsthand the positive ecological and economic role
that conservation and protection--indeed, attention--can play in
improving the health of our Nation's estuaries.
We have only to take a look at today's headlines in The Washington
Post highlighting the improvement of the blue crab in the Chesapeake
Bay, largely due to the protection efforts that we've undertaken there,
a Federal commitment, a State and regional commitment to improving the
Nation's largest estuary, which happens to be a great partner for my
State of Maryland.
And so in the past year we have seen that, because of the commitment
of the administration and many in the Congress and lawmakers, the
Chesapeake Bay, our Nation's largest estuary, has actually made great
strides. And it is highlighted by the return of the blue crab, the
highest levels in 17 years. The return has a positive economic impact
for all sectors: fishermen experience larger catches, the price of the
crab will decrease for our family restaurants, tourism will expand, and
the bay is now healthier than it has been in many years. But we have a
lot of work to do.
So what does that mean in terms of the Clean Estuaries Act? Well, it
means, in fact, that if we pay the same attention to all of our
Nation's estuaries in the way that we have with the Chesapeake Bay, we
can also see improvements. And for those of us who don't live near an
estuary, every time we flush, every time we drive, every time we have
an impact--dropping a piece of trash on the ground has an impact on our
Nation's estuaries. And so while we may not be able to see them, the
impact is so great; and that's why we need this legislation, to produce
a positive effect on estuaries across the country.
This deserves our support because commercial and recreational fishing
accounts for $185 billion in revenues every year. Estuaries provide 75
percent of the catches for all of these revenues. And yet over the last
20 years the health of our estuaries has degraded and the size of
catches has decreased.
[[Page H2600]]
The relationship between the health of an ecosystem and the economic
output can't be overrated. The Clean Estuaries Act stands to reverse
this troubling trend by adding additional estuaries and providing
strong accountability measures in a way to ensure that conservation and
protection are taken seriously.
We need to take positive steps toward cleaning up our Nation's
estuaries by passing this bill and continuing to also invest in green
infrastructure and nonstructural alternatives to protect our
ecosystems.
I want to commend Chairman Oberstar for his leadership and thank all
of our leaders for their commitment to combine environmental
stewardship with economic development for the protection of the
Nation's estuaries.
{time} 1445
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to protect America's
estuaries by strengthening the management of the National Estuary
Program, NEP, and to thank Congressman Oberstar, Congresswoman Johnson,
Congressman Bishop, Congressman Boozman, and beyond for their
excellent, excellent work.
Mr. Chairman, we have a solemn responsibility to keep the vital
habitats clean for the thousands of plants, fish, and wildlife that
live, breed, and spawn there. That is why I am proud to support H.R.
4715, the Clean Estuaries Act.
Currently, there are 28 estuaries within the NEP. The NEP conducts
long-term planning and management activities to restore and protect
estuaries. There are 38 additional estuaries, including Tomales Bay in
my district, which have wanted to join the NEP. With H.R. 4715, we can
increase the authorization of the NEP to $50 million. Tomales Bay and
the other estuaries that have a desire to be part of it will have the
opportunity to become part of this important program.
Tomales Bay supports a diverse group of wildlife, including seasonal
populations of salmon and steelhead, more than 20,000 shorebirds and
seabirds, and a wide variety of shellfish. Tomales Bay is considered a
wetland of significant importance under the International Convention on
Wetlands, so protecting the vibrant biological hotspot from pollution
through the NEP will help to preserve this estuary for generations and
generations to enjoy.
I want to commend the hard work of the Tomales Bay Watershed Council,
a multistakeholder group that has long championed restoring Tomales
Bay. Additionally, the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary
is working on a Tomales Bay management plan, covering the bay, itself.
Extending this plan to the entire watershed through the NEP process
would ensure better scientific understanding, and it would improve
restoration projects. The Gulf of the Farallones would be a valuable
and experienced stakeholder in developing a watershed-wide plan.
Mr. Chairman, we must protect nationally significant estuaries like
Tomales Bay through better accountability, management, and coordination
with local partners. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting
healthy and clean estuaries by voting for H.R. 4715.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself the remaining time to thank the
gentleman from Arkansas for his generosity in yielding time, which had
inadvertently run out on our side.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 4715, the
Clean Estuaries Act. This Act reauthorizes the Environmental Protection
Agency's National Estuary Program, which coordinates federal, state and
local government efforts, as well as cooperation from private and
nonprofit groups, to help protect estuaries.
Estuaries support diverse habitats for a wide variety of species and
provide significant economic and recreational benefits. Many fish and
shellfish species depend on the sheltered habitat provided by
estuaries, as well as the mix of saline and fresh water. The abundance
of aquatic life supported by estuaries provides 75 percent of the U.S.
commercial fish catch and 80 to 90 percent of the recreational fish
catch.
The Environmental Protection Agency already has accepted 28 estuaries
into the National Estuary Program. The Clean Estuaries Act increases
the annual authorization from $35 million to $50 million, an amount
that, if fully appropriated, will allow the Environmental Protection
Agency to add 12 new estuaries to the program. At present, 38 estuaries
are candidates for the program, including two estuaries in the State of
Hawaii--Kaneohe Bay and Hanalei Bay--that could benefit greatly from
the support provided by the program. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting this bill to protect the ecological, recreational, and
economic benefits of our nation's estuaries.
Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my strong support for
H.R. 4715, the Clean Estuaries Act of 2010. This bill would reauthorize
for an additional five years, our nation's National Estuary Program
(NEP).
As home to one of the nation's most diverse national estuaries, the
Indian River Lagoon, the residents of Florida's 15th Congressional
District have seen the value of this program to this important estuary
and how it has enhanced our community. The NEP has proven very
successful in helping restore and enhance the quality of our lagoon.
Specific NEP initiatives across our estuary included eliminating
effluent discharges from more than 20 wastewater facilities,
reconnecting impounded salt marshes, developing storm water treatment
facilities, and reducing freshwater discharges into the lagoon.
As one of the 28 designated national estuaries, the Indian River
Lagoon receives an important funding set-aside within the annual
National Estuary Program (NEP) budget. This will enable the Indian
River Lagoon NEP to accomplish restoration and water quality
improvements that are included in their 2010 lagoon work plan.
The Indian River Lagoon was one of only two estuaries nationally to
receive top quality ratings from the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) when considering water quality, sediment, benthic, and fish
tissue culture. While this is good, we know that there is much more
work that needs to be done. Passage of H.R. 4715 will help the Indian
River Lagoon NEP move forward with their comprehensive restoration and
water quality improvement plans and provides more funding for this
purpose.
I would also urge my colleagues to oppose an amendment by Rep.
Schauer (D-MI), which would dilute the resources in the NEP and result
in less funding for the 28 nationally recognized estuaries, including
the Indian River Lagoon.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4715.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chair, estuaries, the coastal wetlands where fresh
and salt water meet, are both a vital filter for urban runoff that
would otherwise flow out of the river and into the ocean, and a cradle
for marine and wildlife.
We are not able to create new estuaries. We either restore and
protect them, or we lose them.
They are a foundation of our economy. The tourism industry needs
estuaries to keep the sea clean and healthy. The fishing industry
relies on them to replenish the oceans. Estuaries provide the habitat
for 75 percent of the U.S. commercial fish catch and as much as 90
percent of the recreational fish catch, according to the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Research
Council.
Estuaries are critically important to human life. They filter our
groundwater, and are a buffer from flooding. The phytoplankton nursed
in estuaries remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and produce
oxygen in its place. In fact, phytoplankton in estuaries and oceans
produce about half the world's oxygen.
So it is imperative that the House passes H.R. 4715, the Clean
Estuaries Act of 2010.
The bill protects and supports 28 estuaries with grants, including
the Santa Monica Bay and the Ballona Wetlands in my district.
Dozens of local groups fought for decades to acquire for the public's
benefits 600 acres of Ballona Wetlands. They succeeded in 2003. Since
then, the habitat has attracted more than 200 species of birds, some of
which are now returning to nest after more than a 70-year absence.
Ballona is home to many rare species, including the Belding's Savannah
Sparrow and the recently discovered Orcutt's yellow pincushion.
Citizens have similarly banded together to protect the Santa Monica
Bay. Backed by the Clean Water Act--part of which this bill
reauthorizes--my dear friend Dorothy Green worked with other citizens
out of her living rooms for years to force the Hyperion Wastewater
Treatment plant to update its filtering system. Since then, the plant
has cut its waste by 95 percent, literally bringing life back to parts
of Santa Monica Bay that were once declared dead zones.
The stimulus bill in 2009 funded several innovative storm drain
projects in the South Bay and a series of low impact development rain
[[Page H2601]]
gardens along Ballona Creek, all of which help prevent polluted storm
water runoff from entering Santa Monica Bay.
The communities of Santa Monica Bay have been more than worthy
partners for Washington. This bill will help to make sure the federal
government lives up to its end of the deal. It will require that
federal agencies participate in the management planning process for the
estuaries that receive the grants, incorporate local priorities into
their actions and increase coordination between the many federal
agencies that either work in or impact estuaries.
But the bill also looks forward. Estuary management programs will be
required to identify their estuary's vulnerability to climate change
and prepare adaptation responses, and will work to educate the public
on estuary health issues.
Over my eight terms in Congress I have worked to obtain federal
grants and strongly supported efforts to preserve the Ballona wetlands
and Santa Monica Bay. I again stand in support of those areas, vital
both to our environmental and our economic health.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chair, I rise and ask unanimous consent to address the
House for one minute.
I support the reauthorization of the National Estuary Program, NEP,
through the adoption of H.R. 4715, the Clean Estuaries Act of 2010.
Estuaries are bodies of water that receive both outflows from rivers
and tidal inflows from the ocean.
They are transition zones between fresh water from rivers and saline
water from the ocean. The mixing of fresh and salt water provides a
unique environment that supports diverse habitats for a wide variety of
living resources, including plants, fish, and wildlife.
Estuaries provide habitat for 75 percent of the U.S. commercial fish
catch and 80 to 90 percent of the recreational fish catch.
Coastal counties for 40 percent of the employment and 49 percent of
the economic output for the nation. Estuaries are also vital to the
health of our beaches, which produce between $6 billion and $30 billion
for coastal communities each year.
We need this bill because many of the Nation's estuaries are
currently in poor ecological health.
This bill requires the Administrator of the EPA to undertake a
programmatic evaluation of EPA's overall National Estuaries Program to
asses its effectiveness in improving water quality, natural resources,
and sustainable uses of included estuaries. In addition, the bill
requires the EPA to submit a report to Congress on the results of this
evaluation.
H.R. 4715 includes evaluation and update requirements to ensure
accountability.
With this legislation, all approved estuary programs will be
evaluated and will now update their management plans on a periodic
basis, increasing program transparency and improving program
performance.
In addition this bill requires that Federal agencies participate in
the management planning process, incorporate local priorities into
their activities and actions and increase coordination within the
estuary.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4715, Clean Estuaries Act.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, as a member of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee I rise to lend my strong support to H.R. 4715
``The Clean Estuaries Act of 2010.''
This Act will not only improve the management of our current
estuaries, but it will allow several other sites that have expressed
interest in becoming a part of the National Estuaries program by
significantly increasing the funding level for the National Estuaries
program. The sites that are interested in inclusion in my area include
the San Pedro Bay and Newport Bay, which join thirty six other sites
that are also interested in inclusion.
Supporting Estuaries is critical to our prosperity because of the
importance of coastal areas to our Nation's economy. Coastal counties
account for 40 percent of the employment and 49 percent of the economic
output for the nation.
Through the adoption of the Clean Estuaries Act of 2010, all approved
estuary programs will be evaluated and will periodically update their
management plans, increasing program transparency and improving program
performance. Approved programs would have to identify the impact of
climate change on estuaries and prepare adaptation responses, as well
as work to educate the public on estuary health issues and develop
performance measures and targets.
This bill will help expand the program to protect and clean our
estuaries and I thank Congressman Bishop for his hard work bringing
this bill through the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and
to the floor today. I ask that my colleagues today support this bill,
and help protect our estuaries.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of protecting our
Nation's estuaries by passing the Clean Estuaries Act (H.R. 4715).
I am fortunate to represent a district that borders the San Francisco
Bay. A healthy and clean bay is central to the economic prosperity and
quality of life of my constituents. Since 1987, the National Estuary
Program has promoted comprehensive planning efforts to clean up and
preserve estuaries. The legislation before us today would reauthorize
and strengthen the National Estuary Program, providing additional
assistance to communities to protect their waterways.
In my community, the National Estuary Program supports the San
Francisco Bay Estuary Partnership. This partnership brings together
diverse stakeholders and has created dozens of projects that support a
thriving bay. For example, at the Eden Landing Ecological Reserve in
Hayward, hundreds of adult and student volunteers are restoring
shoreline habitat by removing invasive plants and planting native marsh
grasses. In addition to improving water and habitat quality, this
project is also teaching children about the bay and how to protect it.
The Estuary Partnership is also working with local governments in my
district to promote and replicate proven bay-friendly best management
practices to decrease run-off pollution into the bay. By passing the
Clean Estuaries Act, we can ensure that these initiatives and hundreds
of similar efforts around the country will be continued and expanded. I
urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered read for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4715
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 ``Clean Estuaries Act of
2010''.
SEC. 2. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM AMENDMENTS.
(a) Purposes of Conference.--
(1) Development of comprehensive conservation and
management plans.--Section 320(b)(4) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330(b)(4)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(4) develop and submit to the Administrator a
comprehensive conservation and management plan that--
``(A) identifies the estuary and its associated upstream
waters to be addressed by the plan, with consideration given
to hydrological boundaries;
``(B) recommends priority corrective actions and compliance
schedules addressing point and nonpoint sources of pollution
to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the estuary, including restoration
and maintenance of water quality, a resilient and diverse
indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and
recreational activities in the estuary, and assure that the
designated uses of the estuary are protected;
``(C) considers current and future sustainable commercial
activities in the estuary;
``(D) addresses the impacts of climate change on the
estuary, including--
``(i) the identification and assessment of vulnerabilities
in the estuary; and
``(ii) the development and implementation of adaptation
strategies;
``(E) increases public education and awareness of the
ecological health and water quality conditions of the
estuary;
``(F) identifies and assesses impairments, including
upstream impairments, coming from outside of the area
addressed by the plan, and the sources of those impairments;
and
``(G) includes performance measures and goals to track
implementation of the plan.''.
(2) Monitoring and making results available.--Section
320(b)(6) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1330(b)(6)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(6) monitor (and make results available to the public
regarding)--
``(A) water quality conditions in the estuary and its
associated upstream waters, as identified under paragraph
(4)(A);
``(B) habitat conditions that relate to the ecological
health and water quality conditions of the estuary; and
``(C) the effectiveness of actions taken pursuant to the
comprehensive conservation and management plan developed for
the estuary under this subsection;''.
(3) Information and educational activities.--Section 320(b)
of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1330(b)) is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
``(7) provide information and educational activities on the
ecological health and water quality conditions of the
estuary; and''.
(4) Conforming amendment.--The sentence following section
320(b)(8) of such Act (as so redesignated) is amended by
striking ``paragraph (7)'' and inserting ``paragraph (8)''.
(b) Members of Conference.--Section 320(c)(5) of such Act
(33 U.S.C. 1330(c)(5)) is amended by inserting after
``institutions,'' the following: ``not-for-profit
organizations,''.
[[Page H2602]]
(c) Administration of Plans.--Section 320(f) of such Act
(33 U.S.C. 1330(f)) is amended to read as follows:
``(f) Administration of Plans.--
``(1) Approval.--Not later than 120 days after the date on
which a management conference submits to the Administrator a
comprehensive conservation and management plan under this
section, and after providing for public review and comment,
the Administrator shall approve the plan if the Administrator
determines that the plan meets the requirements of this
section and the affected Governor or Governors concur.
``(2) Implementation.--Upon approval of a comprehensive
conservation and management plan under this section, the plan
shall be implemented. Funds authorized to be appropriated
under titles II and VI and section 319 may be used in
accordance with the applicable requirements of this Act to
assist States with the implementation of the plan.
``(3) Evaluation.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, and every 4 years thereafter,
the Administrator shall complete an evaluation of the
implementation of each comprehensive conservation and
management plan developed under this section to determine the
degree to which the goals of the plan have been met.
``(B) Review and comment by management conference.--In
completing an evaluation under subparagraph (A), the
Administrator shall submit the results of the evaluation to
the appropriate management conference for review and comment.
``(C) Report.--
``(i) In general.--In completing an evaluation under
subparagraph (A), and after providing an opportunity for a
management conference to submit comments under subparagraph
(B), the Administrator shall issue a report on the results of
the evaluation, including the findings and recommendations of
the Administrator and any comments received from the
management conference.
``(ii) Availability to public.--The Administrator shall
make a report issued under this subparagraph available to the
public, including through publication in the Federal Register
and on the Internet.
``(D) Special rule for new plans.--Notwithstanding
subparagraph (A), if a management conference submits a new
comprehensive conservation and management plan to the
Administrator after the date of enactment of this paragraph,
the Administrator shall complete the evaluation of the plan
required by subparagraph (A) not later than 4 years after the
date of such submission and every 4 years thereafter.
``(4) Updates.--
``(A) Requirement.--Not later than 18 months after the date
on which the Administrator makes an evaluation of a
comprehensive conservation and management plan available to
the public under paragraph (3)(C), a management conference
convened under this section shall submit to the Administrator
an update of the plan. The updated plan shall reflect, to the
maximum extent practicable, the results of the program
evaluation.
``(B) Approval of updates.--Not later than 120 days after
the date on which a management conference submits to the
Administrator an updated comprehensive conservation and
management plan under subparagraph (A), and after providing
for public review and comment, the Administrator shall
approve the updated plan if the Administrator determines that
the updated plan meets the requirements of this section.
``(5) Probationary status.--The Administrator may consider
a management conference convened under this section to be in
probationary status if the management conference has not
received approval for an updated comprehensive conservation
and management plan under paragraph (4)(B) on or before the
last day of the 3-year period beginning on the date on which
the Administrator makes an evaluation of the plan available
to the public under paragraph (3)(C).''.
(d) Federal Agencies.--Section 320 of such Act (33 U.S.C.
1330) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (g), (h), (i), (j), and
(k) as subsections (h), (i), (j), (k), and (m), respectively;
and
(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
``(g) Federal Agencies.--
``(1) Activities conducted within estuaries with approved
plans.--After approval of a comprehensive conservation and
management plan by the Administrator, any Federal action or
activity affecting the estuary shall be conducted, to the
maximum extent practicable, in a manner consistent with the
plan.
``(2) Coordination and cooperation.--The Secretary of the
Army (acting through the Chief of Engineers), the
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the Director of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Chief of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, and the heads of other appropriate
Federal agencies, as determined by the Administrator, shall,
to the maximum extent practicable, cooperate and coordinate
activities related to the implementation of a comprehensive
conservation and management plan approved by the
Administrator. The Environmental Protection Agency shall
serve as the lead coordinating agency under this paragraph.
``(3) Consideration of plans in agency budget requests.--In
making an annual budget request for a Federal agency referred
to in paragraph (2), the head of such agency shall consider
the responsibilities of the agency under this section,
including under comprehensive conservation and management
plans approved by the Administrator.
``(4) Monitoring.--The heads of the Federal agencies
referred to in paragraph (2) shall collaborate on the
development of tools and methodologies for monitoring the
ecological health and water quality conditions of estuaries
covered by a management conference convened under this
section.''.
(e) Grants.--
(1) In general.--Section 320(h) of such Act (as
redesignated by subsection (d) of this section) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(4) Effects of probationary status.--
``(A) Reductions in grant amounts.--The Administrator shall
reduce, by an amount to be determined by the Administrator,
grants for the implementation of a comprehensive conservation
and management plan developed by a management conference
convened under this section if the Administrator determines
that the management conference is in probationary status
under subsection (f)(5).
``(B) Termination of management conferences.--The
Administrator shall terminate a management conference
convened under this section, and cease funding for the
implementation of the comprehensive conservation and
management plan developed by the management conference, if
the Administrator determines that the management conference
has been in probationary status for 2 consecutive years.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 320(i) of such Act (as
redesignated by subsection (d) of this section) is amended by
striking ``subsection (g)'' and inserting ``subsection (h)''.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 320(j) of
such Act (as redesignated by subsection (d) of this section)
is amended to read as follows:
``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to the Administrator $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2011 through 2016 for--
``(A) expenses related to the administration of management
conferences under this section, except that such expenses
shall not exceed 10 percent of the amount appropriated under
this subsection;
``(B) making grants under subsection (h); and
``(C) monitoring the implementation of a conservation and
management plan by the management conference, or by the
Administrator in any case in which the conference has been
terminated.
``(2) Allocations.--Of the sums authorized to be
appropriated under this subsection, the Administrator shall
provide--
``(A) at least $1,250,000 per fiscal year, subject to the
availability of appropriations, for the development,
implementation, and monitoring of each conservation and
management plan eligible for grant assistance under
subsection (h); and
``(B) up to $5,000,000 per fiscal year to carry out
subsection (k).''.
(g) Technical Amendment.--Section 320(k)(1)(A) of such Act
(as redesignated by subsection (d) of this section) is
amended by striking ``paramenters'' and inserting
``parameters''.
(h) National Estuary Program Evaluation.--Section 320 of
such Act (33 U.S.C. 1330) is amended by inserting after
subsection (k) (as redesignated by subsection (d) of this
section) the following:
``(l) National Estuary Program Evaluation.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, and every 4 years thereafter,
the Administrator shall complete an evaluation of the
national estuary program established under this section.
``(2) Specific assessments.--In conducting an evaluation
under this subsection, the Administrator shall assess the
effectiveness of the national estuary program in improving
water quality, natural resources, and sustainable uses of the
estuaries covered by management conferences convened under
this section.
``(3) Report.--In completing an evaluation under this
subsection, the Administrator shall issue a report on the
results of the evaluation, including the findings and
recommendations of the Administrator.
``(4) Availability to public.--The Administrator shall make
a report issued under this subsection available to the
public, including through publication in the Federal Register
and on the Internet.''.
The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill is in order except those printed
in House Report 111-463. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report,
shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in
the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent of the amendment, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Oberstar
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
House Report 111-463.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
[[Page H2603]]
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Oberstar:
Page 4, strike lines 13 through 15 and insert the
following:
``(E) increases public education and awareness with respect
to--
``(i) the ecological health of the estuary;
``(ii) the water quality conditions of the estuary; and
``(iii) ocean, estuarine, land, and atmospheric connections
and interactions;
Page 8, line 15, insert ``the implementation of'' before
``the plan''.
Page 8, line 22, insert ``the implementation of'' before
``a comprehensive''.
Page 10, line 25, insert ``, including monitoring
activities,'' after ``activities''.
Page 11, after line 18, insert the following:
(1) Recipients.--Section 320(h)(1) of such Act (as
redesignated by subsection (d) of this section) is amended by
striking ``other public'' and all that follows before the
period at the end and inserting ``and other public or
nonprofit private agencies, institutions, and
organizations''.
Page 11, line 19, strike ``(1) In general.--'' and insert
``(2) Effects of probationary status.--''.
Page 11, line 21, insert ``further'' before ``amended''.
Page 12, line 17, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.
Page 15, after line 8, insert the following:
(i) Convening of Conference.--Section 320(a)(2) of such Act
(33 U.S.C. 1330(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(2) Convening of conference.--'' and all
that follows through ``In any case'' and inserting the
following:
``(2) Convening of conference.--In any case''; and
(2) by striking subparagraph (B).
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1248, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes technical changes to
the underlying bill. It ensures the continued competitive nature of the
National Estuary Program.
We ensure that the program evaluations will assess whether the
implementation of a comprehensive conservation and management plan is
achieving its stated goals.
The amendment will enhance public education on the connections
between air, land, water, and the potential impacts of those factors on
the health of the estuary.
It will strike the existing statutory priority list of estuaries.
It will remove individuals from the list of approved recipients for
grants under this program.
First, the technical changes will ensure that program evaluations
determine whether the implementation of a management plan is reaching
its stated goals. It will ensure that not only the plan but the
implementation of the plan is achieving improvements in water quality
and habitat in the estuary.
Second, the amendment ensures that the public education component of
any management plan will include and will highlight the connections
within the estuary between air, land, and water and the potential
impacts of those interactions. Estuaries will be able to highlight to
citizens living within the boundaries of the estuary how their actions
will affect the health of the estuary and how they can change their
habits or how they can change their actions to improve the quality of
the estuary.
Third, the amendment strikes existing statutory language that lists a
number of States and regions to receive priority consideration under
the program. That historical prioritization does not reflect estuaries
that are part of the National Estuary Plan. Some estuaries on the list
do not now participate in the program. The 12 estuaries that do
participate are not included on the list, so that prioritization is
superfluous.
This change does not mean that estuaries now in the NEP will be
removed. It means that existing programs must continue to meet their
obligations under the program and meet the performance requirements of
the legislation to continue to be part of the National Estuary Program.
It will be a competitive program. That is the purpose of the changes
that I've just cited.
Finally, we strike statutory language that now allows individuals to
be eligible grant recipients under the program. No individual has ever
received a grant under the program, according to the EPA, so there is
no need to have that language in the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, though
I am not opposed to the bill.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Arkansas is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Again, I just rise to say that we are very much in
support of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for those remarks.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of
the manager's amendment offered by the Chairman of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. Oberstar.
This amendment makes a few technical changes to the underlying
legislation and to the existing National Estuaries Program.
First, the amendment clarifies that the increased accountability
called for in the bill includes a review of the implementation of
existing comprehensive conservation and management plans, and not just
of the plans, themselves.
Second, the amendment ensures that the public is provided with
additional information on the relationship between air quality, water
quality, and land use, and their potential impacts on the overall
health of local estuaries.
Oftentimes, locally developed solutions are the most cost-effective
and long-lasting way to improve the environment. This has been the
basis of success for many of the existing national estuary programs.
Following this model, the manager's amendment includes language to
encourage public education on the interconnectivity of local air,
water, and land resources.
With more information, the average citizen can be more aware of how
his or her actions affect the environment around them, and how small
changes in an individual's everyday life can have substantial positive
impacts on the local environment.
Third, the manager's amendment addresses one of the legacies of the
initial authorization for the National Estuaries Program by deleting
the outdated, statutory priority list of estuaries.
All but one of the estuaries on the existing list already have
recognized estuary program offices.
The intent of this change is not to eliminate any of the existing 28
estuary programs, but to clarify that estuaries are not simply entitled
to remain in the program. If an estuary program continues to meet its
obligations under the Clean Water Act, and the enhanced accountability
called for in this legislation, they will continue to remain in the
program.
However, the intent of this legislation is also to ensure that
individual program offices are reaching their goals of improving water
quality and the overall ecological health of the estuary.
The final change proposed by this amendment is to eliminate the
eligibility of individuals for grant assistance under this program.
According to EPA, no individual has ever received a grant under this
program, so this is unused authority.
Mr. Chair, I support the amendment and urge my colleagues to support
the amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Oberstar
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
House Report 111-463.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that I
offer on behalf of Ms. Pingree and yourself.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Oberstar:
Page 14, strike lines 17 through 23 and insert the
following:
``(2) Specific assessments.--In conducting an evaluation
under this subsection, the Administrator shall--
``(A) assess the effectiveness of the national estuary
program in improving water quality, natural resources, and
sustainable uses of the estuaries covered by management
conferences convened under this section;
``(B) identify best practices for improving water quality,
natural resources, and sustainable uses of the estuaries
covered by management conferences convened under this
section, including those practices funded through the use of
technical assistance from the Environmental Protection Agency
and other Federal agencies, and assess the reasons why such
practices result in the achievement of program goals; and
``(C) identify any redundant requirements for reporting by
recipients of a grant under
[[Page H2604]]
this section, and develop and recommend a plan for limiting
reporting redundancies.
Page 15, line 4, strike ``to public''.
Page 15, line 6, insert ``management conferences convened
under this section and'' before ``the public''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1248, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time so the distinguished
ranking member of the committee may speak at this moment.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, although
I am not opposed to the amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Florida is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. MICA. I think we've reached a bipartisan accord. I support the
gentlewoman from Maine and also the gentleman from Texas who have
offered this amendment.
I did not have an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to speak during the
general debate. I was delayed.
After saying that our side does support this pending amendment,
which, in the absence of the sponsors is being offered by the chair of
the committee, I do want to take this opportunity to, first of all,
thank Mr. Oberstar, our chair, and the ranking member, the gentleman
from Arkansas, who has conceded time and is doing an incredible job in
heading up our side of the aisle on a very important issue, which is
water resources for the Nation.
So, Mr. Boozman, thank you for your cooperation, and thank you to the
chair of the subcommittee, Ms. Johnson from Texas.
A lot of times when I go back home and people say, Well, Congress
doesn't work well, and Congress does this and Congress does that or
they are always fighting and bickering, it's good to be a part of the
committee, of the largest committee in Congress, I might add--
Transportation and Infrastructure--which has six subcommittees and a
very important one here, Water Resources. Water Resources controls all
of the major water projects in the country--dams, levees. In this case,
we are the stewards for the Nation and, really, for what the good Lord
gave us, which is our estuaries.
Most people don't know much about estuaries, but we do have that
responsibility to make certain that they are preserved, that they are
protected, and that we do the best with the money that is given to us
on behalf of the taxpayers to protect that part of nature and our
ecological system that, again, is so vital.
I do want to thank Mr. Boozman and the chairs of the full committee
and subcommittee for their work because we are here together to pass
this in a bipartisan manner. So, on a day when many people are coming
here to protest some of the things that do go on in Washington--big
spending and taxation on the day we just are all paying out to the
Federal Government--this is an example of a cooperative effort.
Let me also say, too, as the Republican leader of the Transportation
Committee, many people have been coming to me in the last hours and
have been saying, Mr. Mica, how are you going to vote on this bill?
This bill does represent an increase in funding.
Now, you are probably looking at one of the most conservative Members
of Congress. They listed 435 Members, and I was listed as No. 58 in the
last week or so as far as fiscal conservative voting, and I take great
pride in that because I worked hard for my money. I know people out
there have worked hard to make a living and have struggled to feed
their families and to just make ends meet. At this time, we have got to
be particularly mindful of taxpayer dollars.
{time} 1500
From time to time, there are areas in which we need to spend a few
more dollars, and we are talking about a few dollars. We're not talking
about billions. I do know millions add up to billions, but in this
instance we have invested very little, and in this instance this is a
very clear Federal responsibility. This is where seawater and
freshwater meet. And certainly if there is an area of responsibility,
that is a Federal responsibility. The States cannot nationally be
responsible for waters that flow through many jurisdictional
boundaries.
So here is an arch fiscal conservative coming before Congress on a
day in which we are all concerned about government spending and saying,
yes, we should invest a few dollars more in something that, again, is
God given, the fragile ecosystem that has been handed to us and we have
to be good stewards of.
So I am going to vote ``yes'' for this amendment; and when the bill
comes up you are going to see me vote ``yes'' for the bill, even though
it does increase spending from $35 million to $50 million.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Taylor). The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the distinguished cosponsor of the amendment, the gentlewoman from
Maine (Ms. Pingree).
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4715, the Clean Estuaries Act, is an important
step towards restoring our Nation's most critical estuaries. This bill
will create jobs and strengthen communities. I strongly support the
bill and want to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Bishop) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), for
their hard work in crafting this legislation.
One way to improve the efficiency and ensure the program is
functioning at its highest level is to share information. The local
estuary partnerships work closely with the Federal Government, but all
too often the detailing of what works well in one estuary is not
formally shared with the other estuaries.
That is why Representative Cuellar and I are offering an amendment
that requires the EPA to collect best practices and then share them
with the estuaries. The amendment improves efficiency and smooth
operation of the NEPs by helping them connect with other estuaries and
build on work that has already been done.
Like many of you, in my district I have a mall, the largest mall in
the State. It is built around a stream that flows into Casco Bay. And
when it rains, the water runs off the roofs and parking lots, washing
the oil, salt, and other contaminants on the pavement into Long Creek.
Because of all this development, Long Creek is an urban-impaired
watershed, and this means until the water quality is improved, the
mall, businesses around the mall, as well as State and local government
who own the roads face tougher storm water management restrictions.
This amendment will keep the businesses and local governments in the
Long Creek watershed from having to start over when faced with
questions on how to manage storm water. By using tested, known best
practices, the businesses will save money and water quality in Long
Creek will improve faster. The amendment reduces the costs of improving
water quality and saves these important businesses real money.
The amendment helps to ensure that all of our estuary stakeholders,
including those in Long Creek, have access to the very best tools and
methods for protecting and restoring water quality.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I now yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
Mr. CUELLAR. I want to thank the chairman, Mr. Oberstar; the
subcommittee chairwoman also, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie
Bernice Johnson); Ms. Pingree also for the work she has done; and, of
course, our ranking members, Mr. Boozman, for the work that you and Mr.
Mica have done.
This particular amendment is to support government efficiency. We
both believe this amendment will eliminate waste and redundancies in
the programs and will improve the effectiveness and cut back wasteful
spending.
This amendment authorizes the Administrator of the EPA to identify,
number one, best management practices for allocating resources in an
efficient and effective manner. It would outline key reasons why such
practices will result in positive outcomes and disseminate the best
practices to the management conferences. Also, this amendment
identifies redundant rules,
[[Page H2605]]
regulations, and requirements for reporting by grant recipients and
instructs the EPA Administrator to develop a plan to eliminate those
redundancies in the future.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, will make our government more
efficient, more effective, and more accountable by conducting this type
of evaluation. I urge support of this amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished
chair of our subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie
Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support
of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree)
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
This amendment makes two important changes to the underlying bill
that should benefit the overall effectiveness of the National Estuary
Program.
First, the amendment requires the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to conduct an assessment of best practices for
improving water quality, natural resources, and sustainable uses of the
estuary as part of the Agency's periodic evaluation of the National
Estuary Program.
Following this assessment, the Administrator would be required to
disseminate information on these best practices to other estuary
management conferences convened under section 320, as well as to the
public.
I support this provision because it will provide a good, centralized
resource on successful, locally produced practices for improving the
overall health of estuarine areas.
This clearinghouse should provide valuable information to other
management conferences and the general public on what practices are
being successfully implemented in the field so that each management
conference does not have to ``reinvent the wheel'' each time they are
looking for creative ideas to benefit their local environment.
While what works in one area of the country may not necessarily work
in another, I would suspect that simply sharing success stories on
management practices will have an overall benefit to local restoration
efforts.
The second change proposed by this amendment is to require the
Administrator to identify potential redundant reporting requirements
for grant recipients, and to propose a plan for reducing such
redundancy.
It would seem common sense that where efficiencies in reporting
requirements can be achieved in such a way that reduces the overall
burden on grant recipients, but does not impact the overall operation
of the program or its accountability to taxpayers, such an effort
should be undertaken.
I support this amendment, and urge its adoption.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Kagen
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
House Report 111-463.
Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Kagen:
Page 4, line 19, strike ``and'' at the end.
Page 4, line 21, strike the first period through the final
period and insert ``; and''.
Page 4, after line 21, insert the following:
``(H) includes a coordinated monitoring strategy for
Federal, State, and local governments and other entities.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1248, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. KAGEN. I thank Chairman Oberstar for allowing me to move this
amendment forward. And, Ms. Johnson, thank you very much. And it's good
to see Mr. Boozman on the floor.
This is a very simple and straightforward amendment that includes
language for measuring the outcomes. The coordination and cooperation
between State, local, and Federal agencies will be necessary to
guarantee that our dollars are well spent and that we have a very
efficient operation as we protect our estuaries.
So I would submit this amendment and hope that I would have
bipartisan support for it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Arkansas is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. BOOZMAN. I rise to support the amendment.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of
the amendment from the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).
This amendment requires a monitoring effort on the part of National
Estuary Program partners.
A coordinated monitoring program is very important to ensure the
success of these programs.
Monitoring is a key piece of any restoration plan. This amendment
will help to increase efficiencies, save money and reduce duplicative
activities by requiring the partners to coordinate their monitoring
activities.
Also, requiring monitoring by the partners will mean that the
management conference, and the appropriate Federal, State and local
agencies will be able to measure the accomplishments of the management
conference. Without monitoring, the management conference will not be
able to determine if the plan has succeeded or failed at improving
water quality and the habitat of the estuary.
I commend our Committee colleague for offering this amendment, and
urge its approval.
Mr. BOOZMAN. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KAGEN. I thank the kind gentleman for agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, in the true spirit of a very efficient operation, I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Schauer
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
House Report 111-463.
Mr. SCHAUER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Schauer:
Page 15, after line 8, add the following:
(i) Great Lakes Estuaries.--Section 320(m) of such Act (as
redesignated by subsection (d) of this section) is amended by
striking the subsection designation and all that follows
through ``and those portions of tributaries'' and inserting
the following:
``(m) Definitions.--In this section, the terms `estuary'
and `estuarine zone' have the meanings such terms have in
section 104(n)(4), except that--
``(1) the term `estuary' also includes near coastal waters
and other bodies of water within the Great Lakes that are
similar in form and function to the waters described in the
definition of `estuary' contained in section 104(n)(4); and
``(2) the term `estuarine zone' also includes--
``(A) waters within the Great Lakes described in paragraph
(1) and transitional areas from such waters that are similar
in form and function to the transitional areas described in
the definition of `estuarine zone' contained in section
104(n)(4);
``(B) associated aquatic ecosystems; and
``(C) those portions of tributaries''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1248, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Schauer) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. SCHAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The amendment before you would define ``estuary'' under the Clean
Water Act to include Great Lakes near shore waters and connecting
waters that are similar to traditional estuaries covered by the
National Estuary Program. The amendment would allow Great Lakes
estuaries eligible to apply on a competitive basis for inclusion in the
National Estuary Program.
The Great Lakes and surrounding waters are a valuable natural
resource of national importance, and it makes sense that they are
eligible to apply for inclusion in this competitive grant program.
Again, my amendment would clearly define ``estuary'' to include Great
Lakes waterways and connecting waterways.
The Great Lakes hold 90 percent of the United States surface
freshwater, 20 percent of the world's freshwater, and are the largest
system of fresh surface water on Earth. The Midwest relies on the Great
Lakes for commerce,
[[Page H2606]]
tourism, and drinking water. Unfortunately, the health of the Great
Lakes has been threatened by pollution, invasive species, and water
withdrawals. Failure to protect the Great Lakes now could result in
more serious consequences. Conservationists, environmental stewards,
hunters, fishermen, and outdoorsmen from all over the country share my
sentiment.
Including the Great Lakes waterways in the National Estuary Program
will help create long-term planning and management of both point and
nonpoint sources of pollution and protect areas of commercial
importance from ecological risks.
Mr. Chair, we need to do everything we can to protect Great Lakes
waterways. We can make another step in the right direction by expanding
the definition of ``estuary'' to include the Great Lakes waterways and
allow these waterways to be eligible for funding in the National
Estuary Program. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will pull money out of the
National Estuary Program and send it to address the needs of the Great
Lakes.
The National Estuary Program is meant to assist those in important
ecological areas in our country where the freshwater of rivers meets
and mixes with seawater. By any scientific definition, there are no
estuaries in the Great Lakes.
Over the years, Congress has created and funded a number of programs
to address the needs of the Great Lakes. We have established an entire
office in the EPA to work on the Great Lakes issue. While there are
many worthy projects that could be done in the Great Lakes, I believe
we should use existing Great Lakes programs to address those needs and
not dilute the National Estuary Program. If the gentleman believes that
more should be done for the Great Lakes, then we should have the debate
on whether or not to modify the existing Great Lakes program. Members
who have true estuaries in their States which are very coastal in
nature should be concerned about this amendment diluting the intent and
the dollars associated with this important program.
To my colleagues in the Great Lakes States who understandably might
be tempted to a support this amendment, I would say this amendment
makes about as much sense as suggesting that the Great Lakes Legacy Act
dollars should be used to address the needs of the Chesapeake Bay. The
Great Lakes and the Nation's estuaries are both important areas. Let's
address them in the context of their own separate legislation and not
make one complete with the other.
With that, I urge Members to oppose the Schauer amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1515
Mr. SCHAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have great respect for my colleague's comments. My amendment would
merely bring this National Estuary Program into compliance and
consistency with the 2000 Estuaries and Clean Waters Act. For purposes
of that act, Congress's definition of estuaries included Great Lakes.
So in substance, this definition would be exactly the same as the 2000
Estuaries and Clean Waters Act.
I now yield to the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
While I respect the remarks of the gentleman from Arkansas, we
specify in this amendment, Mr. Schauer does, that the meeting place of
the rivers and the lakes is not a traditional estuary, is not a meeting
place of fresh and saltwater, but that these points would be treated as
estuaries. As an example, the lamprey eel lays its eggs in the
discharge point of the rivers that contribute to and discharge into the
Great Lakes. That is a meeting place of river water and lake water
where a destructive, nonindigenous, invasive species multiplies.
Including the Great Lakes in the estuary program will provide
additional authority for the Great Lakes to work to control this
monster that destroys the fishery of the Great Lakes. This is not an
allocation, this is not an earmark, it is not a specific designation.
It simply allows the Great Lakes to compete for available dollars
authorized under this program.
We think that this body of the greatest repository of freshwater on
the earth ought to have standing among the others that have designation
as estuaries. Those meeting places on the Great Lakes are every bit as
important as the meeting places of the freshwater rivers and the
saltwater repositories of a traditional estuary definition.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again having great respect for our chairman, the point that I am
trying to make is that I understand the problems that we face in the
Great Lakes. And this is a body of such significance. And yet, again,
my feeling is that we should take care of that problem within the
structure that we have within the Great Lakes program. I see no need to
expand the estuary program to take care of the Great Lakes.
If we need additional moneys, if we need additional infrastructure in
fighting the battles with the invasive species and things that were
mentioned, then I feel like the place to do that is within the Great
Lakes programs rather than diluting the moneys, a relatively small
amount of money, diluting the money from the estuary program.
With that, I reserve my balance of my time.
Mr. SCHAUER. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of points in closing.
The Federal Government's Web site on this topic of estuaries, it
refers to the Great Lakes as freshwater estuaries that are, quote,
``affected by tides and storms, just as estuaries along the oceanic
coasts are.'' In fact, there is currently a federally-recognized
freshwater estuary in Ohio located on Lake Erie.
My final point, there is a group called Healthy Lakes--Healthy Lives
that wrote in support of this amendment. They state that,
``Traditionally, estuaries are transition zones along our coasts
between fresh water from rivers and saline water from oceans.
Regardless of whether it is a traditional mix of fresh and saltwater
areas that are similar, all estuaries provide a unique environment that
supports diverse habitats.''
I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I have been married for 38
years. I have a wonderful wife. I fell in love with her almost at first
sight. We have been together for three, almost four decades. Probably
the one I spend the most time with other than my wife is Mr. Oberstar
in my work on the committee. We have been together on the committee for
my 18 years. He has been there for 32, a lot longer. Now, with my wife
from time to time I do have disagreements, like just about every day on
some issue. This happens to also be with Mr. Oberstar sort of like that
marital relation, that I would disagree both with my good friend and
colleague Mr. Oberstar and also my colleague from Michigan.
I think that on this, this isn't worth burning the house over, and I
think the gentleman is offering an amendment that is well intended, and
he has a sincere interest in protecting freshwater estuaries. A
definition was cited about freshwater estuaries. And yes, there are
probably thousands, maybe millions of freshwater estuaries. That is the
whole point here is we are expanding a limited definition of marine
estuaries that have saltwater. And one of the justifications for this
whole program at the Federal level is the sea does encompass the entire
perimeter of our coastal areas, particularly Florida, which we have
some of the biggest coastline. We have many places where fresh and
saltwater mix. And that is the importance of this particularly
important but very small Federal program.
[[Page H2607]]
The argument here isn't increasing this billions, we are going from
$35 to $50 million in a program. And it is important that the
additional money not be so diluted. So while I support the gentleman in
what he would like to do with freshwater estuaries, I don't think that
this expansion is appropriate when we are looking at including the body
of freshwater estuaries. We do have a disagreement on this. And I do
support the bill in general. I do take deference with this particular
amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Does it help that the Merchant Marine Act of 1970
designates the Great Lakes as the fourth seacoast?
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of
the amendment from the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schauer).
This amendment would define the term ``estuary'' for the purposes of
this bill to include Great Lakes waters, including those near shore
waters and connections that are similar to traditional estuaries.
Currently, coastal estuaries are the only estuaries that are eligible
to apply for competitive grants under the National Estuary Program. The
amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schauer) would
authorize interested management conferences in Great Lakes waters to
apply for competitive grants under the National Estuary Program.
I support the amendment.
The CHAIR. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Schauer).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in
House Report 111-463.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin:
Page 14, strike lines 3 through 6 and insert the following:
(g) Research.--Section 320(k)(1)(A) of such Act (as
redesignated by subsection (d) of this section) is amended--
(1) by striking ``paramenters'' and inserting
``parameters''; and
(2) by inserting ``(including monitoring of both pathways
and ecosystems to track the introduction and establishment of
nonnative species)'' before ``, to provide the
Administrator''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1248, the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, one of the most destructive threats to the ecological
integrity and health of estuaries across our Nation, as well as other
water bodies such as rivers and lakes, are invasive species. Invasive
species destroy ecosystems and have a devastating effect on the health
and balance of these systems, including the estuaries that we are
trying so hard to protect through the National Estuary Program. For
example, the San Francisco Estuary has been called one of the most
invaded estuaries in the world.
Once these species are established, Federal and State authorities
spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to eliminate them, and
failing that, to manage them and repair the enormous ecological and
economic damage they have done and are doing to these important
ecosystems. As I speak, the Army Corps of Engineers is undertaking
efforts to prevent the latest of these threats to Lake Michigan in my
district, the Asian carp, from overrunning this ecological and national
treasure.
This amendment would include assessments of the pathways by which
these unwelcome guests are getting into estuaries in the long term
monitoring and assessment efforts authorized through the National
Estuary Program. For example, one pathway of introduction for nonnative
species in an estuary is the ballast water in ships that they may
discharge as they move through these bodies of water. By strengthening
monitoring of this threat in the estuaries, it is my hope that it will
help improve data available to the various stakeholders, to EPA's
national program office and Congress on how nonnative species are
affecting our estuaries, track whether this problem is getting better
or worse, and guide the development of targeted and effective solutions
to help address and defeat these invaders.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
April 15, 2010 on H2607 the following appeared: to the various
stakeholders, to EPS's
The online version should be corrected to read: to the various
stakeholders, to EPA's
========================= END NOTE =========================
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOOZMAN. I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Arkansas is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. BOOZMAN. We just want to go on the record as supporting this
amendment and urge its adoption.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman. I also want to thank
the chairman of the House Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar, for
his support of this amendment as well. I know he shares my concerns
about the problem of invasive species in ballast water, and I sure look
forward to working with him on another bill to address those concerns
more specifically.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of
the amendment from the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
This amendment would add a new focus area to the existing list of
research programs the Environmental Protection Agency administrator can
implement under the National Estuary Program.
In the existing statutory language for the National Estuary Program,
there is a list of research programs the administrator is authorized to
coordinate and implement with other Federal agencies. This amendment
would allow for a research program related to nonnative species.
Nonnative or invasive species continue to be a threat to many of our
waterbodies, including estuaries.
Adding a new research focus that looks at the potential impacts of
nonnative species and the pathways for introduction in estuaries would
be very helpful in better understanding the potential impacts of these
species to the water quality, natural resource benefits, and
sustainable uses of the estuary.
The programs that experience threats from nonnative species in their
estuaries could incorporate any information obtained from this research
into their plans in the future.
I support the amendment.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Shea-Porter
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in
House Report 111-463.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Ms. Shea-Porter:
Page 4, line 10, strike ``and'' at the end.
Page 4, line 12, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
Page 4, after line 12, insert the following:
``(iii) the impacts of changes in sea level on estuarine
water quality, estuarine habitat, and infrastructure located
in the estuary;
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1248, the gentlewoman from
New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Hampshire.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
First, I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar, Mr. Bishop, and Mr.
LoBiondo for their work on this bill. I have the honor of representing
the First Congressional District of New Hampshire, which is home to the
Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership. PREP, as it is known, has been
a part of the National Estuaries Program since 1995. PREP works to
protect two estuarine systems in New Hampshire, Great Bay/Little Bay
and Hampton Harbor. The partnership has included the entire Great Bay
watershed in their area of focus, which includes 42 communities in New
Hampshire and 10 communities in Maine. The National
[[Page H2608]]
Estuaries Program has been a significant source of funding and
resources, assisting PREP in their valuable work. This reauthorization
we are considering today will make the program stronger and allow for
more estuaries to be included.
Mr. Chairman, one of the threats facing our estuaries is sea level
change. As the sea level rises, it pushes the water further inland,
changing the makeup of our estuaries and wetlands. In some cases, the
effect may be that the wetlands move further inland. However, in areas
like the Northeast, where our land is highly developed, this may not be
possible.
{time} 1530
There may be no place for the plants and animals that depend on the
unique make-up of these estuaries to go. They may, literally, hit a
roadblock, and those ecosystems would collapse. Mr. Chairman, the
threat of that happening should worry us all.
Estuaries are essential habitats. They support countless species of
plants, animals, and sea life. They act as nursery grounds for oceanic
species and are the pathways for many species of fish that migrate from
the oceans into our rivers. In fact, estuaries provide habitat for 75
percent of the commercial fishing catch and up to 90 percent of the
recreational fishing catch in this country.
Estuaries and wetlands also act as buffers to the storms that batter
our coasts. I volunteered in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and I
can tell you firsthand the devastation that the storm caused. Many
scientists have attributed the significant loss of coastal lands and
salt marshes outside of New Orleans as a factor in the severity of the
damage that the storm caused.
Mr. Chairman, sea levels are changing. Whether you agree or disagree
that global climate change is the cause, we should all be alarmed by
the potential impact rising sea levels could have on these important
habitats. It has been estimated that sea level rise could convert as
much as 33 percent of the world's coastal wetlands to open water. That
right would be a devastating loss for our coastal community.
Mr. Chairman, this straightforward amendment would simply ensure that
sea level change is taken into account when the comprehensive
conservation and management plans are constructed. These estuaries are
important parts of our coastal communities and their economies, and we
need to help them survive.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying
bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Arkansas is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, we do not oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Yes, I will yield.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in support
of the amendment. It does not add cost. It does not add any burden on
the process, but it does add an element of review in the evaluation of
these plans and that is to take into consideration sea level rise
that's already happening on our sea coasts, on our salt water coasts.
And the addition of this factor, I think, will make all of the planners
sensitive to the effects, the erosions, shore line erosion effects of
rise of water levels and their consequential effects on the health of
the estuaries.
I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of
the amendment from the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-
Porter).
This amendment would require that individual comprehensive
conservation and management plans evaluate the impacts of changes in
sea level as they apply to the surrounding estuarine region.
Changes in sea level are likely in the future and it is without
question that our coasts are vulnerable to the impacts of these
changes.
For example, water quality and habitat in the estuaries would be
affected by changes in sea level. In addition, those wildlife and fish
that make the estuaries their home could be affected by these changes.
And last, public infrastructure along the coasts and in estuaries
will likely be affected by changes in sea level.
In particular, roads, bridges and water-related infrastructure could
be potentially harmed, inundated, or rendered ineffective by changes in
sea level.
Therefore, it is important that the management plans assess the
potential impacts caused by sea level rise and include potential
responses to these threats.
Again, I support the amendment and applaud the gentlewoman for
offering it.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to thank Chairman
Oberstar, Mr. Bishop and Mr. LoBiondo for their work and leadership on
this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the
underlying bill, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Hampshire will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Kratovil
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in
House Report 111-463.
Mr. KRATOVIL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Kratovil:
Page 6, strike line 3, and insert the following:
(b) Members of Conference; Collaborative Processes.--
(1) Members of conference.--Section 320(c)(5)
Page 6, after line 6, insert the following:
(2) Collaborative processes.--Section 320(d) of such Act
(33 U.S.C. 1330(d)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``(d)'' and all that follows through ``In
developing'' and inserting the following:
``(d) Utilization of Existing Data and Collaborative
Processes.--
``(1) Utilization of existing data.--In developing''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Utilization of collaborative processes.--In updating
a plan under subsection (f)(4) or developing a new plan under
subsection (b), a management conference shall make use of
collaborative processes to--
``(A) ensure equitable inclusion of affected interests;
``(B) engage with members of the management conference,
including through--
``(i) the use of consensus-based decision rules; and
``(ii) assistance from impartial facilitators, as
appropriate;
``(C) ensure relevant information, including scientific,
technical, and cultural information, is accessible to
members;
``(D) promote accountability and transparency by ensuring
members are informed in a timely manner of--
``(i) the purposes and objectives of the management
conference; and
``(ii) the results of an evaluation conducted under
subsection (f)(3);
``(E) identify the roles and responsibilities of members--
``(i) in the management conference proceedings; and
``(ii) in the implementation of the plan; and
``(F) seek resolution of conflicts or disputes as
necessary.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1248, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Kratovil) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. KRATOVIL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R.
4715, the Clean Estuaries Act, and voice my support also for the
underlying bill.
Let me begin by thanking the chairman, Mr. Oberstar, who, as the
Chair knows, has the finest voice of all in Congress; and should he
ever leave Congress, could certainly go forward in doing commentating
somewhere.
But, in any event, Mr. Chairman, Maryland's First Congressional
District is defined by the Chesapeake Bay and its waterways. Although
not directly part of the National Estuary Program, the program was
developed from efforts to protect our Nation's largest estuary, the
Chesapeake Bay.
Estuaries are bodies of water, as you've heard, that receive both
outflows from rivers and tidal inflows
[[Page H2609]]
from the ocean. They are transition zones between fresh water from
rivers and salt water from the ocean. The mixing of fresh and salt
water provides a unique environment that supports diverse habitats for
a wide variety of living resources, including plants, fish, and
wildlife.
Estuaries are critical economic engines that generate billions of
dollars in revenue each year from fishing and tourism. The sad truth is
that along with many of the Nation's estuaries, the Chesapeake is in
poor ecological health as well, although we did have, Mr. Chairman,
some good news yesterday in terms of the blue crab population which I'm
happy to report is rebounding.
Unhealthy estuaries impact not only the commercial and recreational
fishing industries, but threaten industries such as tourism,
restaurants and charter boats, among others, that generate revenue and
create good-paying jobs.
This bill includes effective reforms to that program that will
bolster the health of estuaries, as well as the economy and
infrastructure of affected communities by increasing transparency,
requiring establishment of performance measures and goals, and
introducing much needed accountability to the program.
This legislation will support and maintain the Maryland Coastal Bays
program as one of the most effective estuary programs in the Nation and
ensure that taxpayer dollars are used effectively in the fight to do
so.
I have introduced an amendment that I believe will bolster the
oversight and accountability of these programs by ensuring a
collaborative process involving all stakeholders.
The National Estuary Program is comprised of initiatives across the
country that, under my amendment, will now be subject to a streamlined
management plan that will ensure all stakeholders play a role in the
implementation.
My amendment calls for the equitable inclusion of all relevant
estuary stakeholders, the use of neutral facilitators and processes to
resolve any conflicts, and the inclusion and use of up-to-date
information. Included among these stakeholders will be the region's
farming and agricultural representatives, as well as environmental
groups, so that all parties will come to the table and reach a
consensus agreement about our mutual interests and goals.
While some programs may have used collaborative processes in the
past, this amendment will ensure that all new programs and all existing
programs undergoing management plan updates will collaborate going
forward.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, as well
as the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Arkansas is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, again, we do not oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KRATOVIL. Mr. Chairman, I'll yield to the chairman, Mr. Oberstar,
as much time as he may consume.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the distinguished gentleman for this amendment,
a very thoughtful, well-crafted amendment to resolve conflicts. That is
really what the Congress should be doing, resolving conflicts and
creating structures within our programs within which conflict can be
resolved. And that is particularly important in development of
management plans. There are so many different parties, some at
loggerheads over the management of the watershed.
This idea will ensure that we bring the development of these
management plans to a reasonable and productive conclusion. And so I
thank the gentleman for this amendment. Perhaps if it works, we can
apply it to our work with the other body.
Mr. KRATOVIL. I thank the Chair. I also thank the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) for his support of the amendment.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your support.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of
the amendment from the Gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Kratovil).
This amendment is essentially a reminder to the new programs of the
National Estuary Program that collaborative processes should be used
when developing the management plan.
Many of the estuary programs are currently using collaborative
processes to develop their plans and this amendment encourages these
processes to continue in the future.
The gentleman's amendment ensures that all relevant stakeholders in
an estuary be given an equal voice. This concept is fundamental for
developing a broad-base of support for restoration efforts, and for
increasing the overall likelihood of success.
The amendment would also require the use of a neutral party to
resolve conflicts that arise during the development of a plan. The use
of neutral parties can be an effective way to resolve differences
other, more engaged stakeholders may encounter when developing a
management plan.
Finally, this amendment requires the inclusion of up-to-date
information in the plans.
As the management plans are updated, they should include the most
recent information possible so that they are useful in helping achieve
the long-term goals of improving the water quality and habitat in the
estuaries.
I commend the gentleman for offering this amendment, and urge its
adoption.
Mr. KRATOVIL. I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Kratovil).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms.
Moore of Wisconsin) having assumed the chair, Mr. Cuellar, Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4715) to
amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the
National Estuary Program, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________