[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 5, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H785-H788]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION ACT
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 1132) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
to establish a grant program to support the restoration of San
Francisco Bay, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1132
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 ``San Francisco Bay
Restoration Act''.
[[Page H786]]
SEC. 2. SAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION GRANT PROGRAM.
Title I of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 124. SAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION GRANT PROGRAM.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Estuary partnership.--The term `Estuary Partnership'
means the San Francisco Estuary Partnership, designated as
the management conference for the San Francisco Bay under
section 320.
``(2) San francisco bay plan.--The term `San Francisco Bay
Plan' means--
``(A) until the date of the completion of the plan
developed by the Director under subsection (d), the
comprehensive conservation and management plan approved under
section 320 for the San Francisco Bay estuary; and
``(B) on and after the date of the completion of the plan
developed by the Director under subsection (d), the plan
developed by the Director under subsection (d).
``(b) Program Office.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Administrator shall establish in
the Environmental Protection Agency a San Francisco Bay
Program Office. The Office shall be located at the
headquarters of Region 9 of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
``(2) Appointment of director.--The Administrator shall
appoint a Director of the Office, who shall have management
experience and technical expertise relating to the San
Francisco Bay and be highly qualified to direct the
development and implementation of projects, activities, and
studies necessary to implement the San Francisco Bay Plan.
``(3) Delegation of authority; staffing.--The Administrator
shall delegate to the Director such authority and provide
such staff as may be necessary to carry out this section.
``(c) Annual Priority List.--
``(1) In general.--After providing public notice, the
Director shall annually compile a priority list, consistent
with the San Francisco Bay Plan, identifying and prioritizing
the projects, activities, and studies to be carried out with
amounts made available under subsection (e).
``(2) Inclusions.--The annual priority list compiled under
paragraph (1) shall include the following:
``(A) Projects, activities, and studies, including
restoration projects and habitat improvement for fish,
waterfowl, and wildlife, that advance the goals and
objectives of the San Francisco Bay Plan, for--
``(i) water quality improvement, including the reduction of
marine litter;
``(ii) wetland, riverine, and estuary restoration and
protection;
``(iii) nearshore and endangered species recovery; and
``(iv) adaptation to climate change.
``(B) Information on the projects, activities, and studies
specified under subparagraph (A), including--
``(i) the identity of each entity receiving assistance
pursuant to subsection (e); and
``(ii) a description of the communities to be served.
``(C) The criteria and methods established by the Director
for identification of projects, activities, and studies to be
included on the annual priority list.
``(3) Consultation.--In compiling the annual priority list
under paragraph (1), the Director shall consult with, and
consider the recommendations of--
``(A) the Estuary Partnership;
``(B) the State of California and affected local
governments in the San Francisco Bay estuary watershed;
``(C) the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority; and
``(D) any other relevant stakeholder involved with the
protection and restoration of the San Francisco Bay estuary
that the Director determines to be appropriate.
``(d) San Francisco Bay Plan.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Director, in conjunction with
the Estuary Partnership, shall review and revise the
comprehensive conservation and management plan approved under
section 320 for the San Francisco Bay estuary to develop a
plan to guide the projects, activities, and studies of the
Office to address the restoration and protection of the San
Francisco Bay.
``(2) Revision of san francisco bay plan.--Not less often
than once every 5 years after the date of the completion of
the plan described in paragraph (1), the Director shall
review, and revise as appropriate, the San Francisco Bay
Plan.
``(3) Outreach.--In carrying out this subsection, the
Director shall consult with the Estuary Partnership and
Indian tribes and solicit input from other non-Federal
stakeholders.
``(e) Grant Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Director may provide funding through
cooperative agreements, grants, or other means to State and
local agencies, special districts, and public or nonprofit
agencies, institutions, and organizations, including the
Estuary Partnership, for projects, activities, and studies
identified on the annual priority list compiled under
subsection (c).
``(2) Maximum amount of grants; non-federal share.--
``(A) Maximum amount of grants.--Amounts provided to any
entity under this section for a fiscal year shall not exceed
an amount equal to 75 percent of the total cost of any
projects, activities, and studies that are to be carried out
using those amounts.
``(B) Non-federal share.--Not less than 25 percent of the
cost of any project, activity, or study carried out using
amounts provided under this section shall be provided from
non-Federal sources.
``(f) Funding.--
``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2021 through 2025.
``(2) Administrative expenses.--Of the amount made
available to carry out this section for a fiscal year, the
Director may not use more than 5 percent to pay
administrative expenses incurred in carrying out this
section.
``(3) Prohibition.--No amounts made available under this
section may be used for the administration of a management
conference under section 320.
``(g) Annual Budget Plan.--In each of fiscal years 2021
through 2025, the President, as part of the annual budget
submission of the President to Congress under section 1105(a)
of title 31, United States Code, shall submit information
regarding each Federal department and agency involved in San
Francisco Bay protection and restoration, including--
``(1) a report that displays for each Federal agency--
``(A) the amounts obligated in the preceding fiscal year
for protection and restoration projects, activities, and
studies relating to the San Francisco Bay; and
``(B) the proposed budget for protection and restoration
projects, activities, and studies relating to the San
Francisco Bay; and
``(2) a description and assessment of the Federal role in
the implementation of the San Francisco Bay Plan and the
specific role of each Federal department and agency involved
in San Francisco Bay protection and restoration, including
specific projects, activities, and studies conducted or
planned to achieve the identified goals and objectives of the
San Francisco Bay Plan.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1132, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1132. Introduced by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier), H.R. 1132 builds off existing
bay restoration work under EPA's National Estuary Program.
In my home State of California, the importance of a healthy watershed
and improved water quality has never been more apparent. In fact, the
San Francisco Bay estuary drains more than 40 percent of our State's
waters.
That is why I am thankful to see several of my colleagues from
California as original cosponsors, including members of this committee:
Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Huffman, and Mr. DeSaulnier.
At our June hearing, the subcommittee learned about the ongoing
sources of pollution to this 1,600-square-mile estuary. Simultaneously,
habitat destruction has forever changed the geography of the bay area.
More than 90 percent of shoreline wetlands and 40 percent of the total
aquatic ecosystem have been lost.
This new EPA program office will concentrate Federal efforts to
address water quality challenges and ecosystem health in the bay. This
will improve the environment and economy for the bay area region that
is home to 8 million people and an annual GDP of $775 billion.
Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1132, and I urge my colleagues to do the
same.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters in support of H.R. 1132,
the San Francisco Bay Restoration Act, from the National Audubon
Society and Save the Bay.
[[Page H787]]
Audubon,
September 18, 2019.
Hon. Peter DeFazio,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Sam Graves,
Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Washington, DC.
Hon. Grace Napolitano,
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Bruce Westerman,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment, Washington, DC.
On behalf of the National Audubon Society's more than 1
million members, our mission is to protect birds and the
places they need for today and tomorrow. We write to offer
our support for the following bills related to important
coastal and water conservation issues that will be the
subject of the September 19, 2019 Markup before the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
HR 4031--Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Act of 2019
The Great Lakes are home to 30 million people and 350
species of birds, but increasing challenges are on the
horizon for the world's largest body of freshwater.
Fluctuating water levels exacerbated by climate change,
invasive exotic species and excess nutrients are putting even
more stress on this ecosystem that is so important for birds
and people. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative has helped
clean up toxic pollutants, protect wildlife by restoring
critical habitat, and help combat devastating invasive
species.
HR 4031 would increase funding for conservation projects to
$475 million over five years, by increasing the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative's authorization incrementally from
$300 million per year to $475 million per year.
HR 1132--San Francisco Bay Restoration Act
The San Francisco Bay Area, home to the Pacific Coast's
largest estuary, is also home to a rapidly growing population
of 8 million people, and provides for a host of social and
economic values through ports and industry, agriculture,
fisheries, archaeological and cultural sites, recreation, and
research. However, San Francisco Bay has lost 90% of its
tidal wetlands and more than 50% of its eelgrass and mudflat
habitat. Climate change exacerbates these conditions through
drought that alters the salinity balance, ocean acidification
that reduces species abundance and diversity, increasing
water temperatures, and rising seas causing flooding that
eliminates living shorelines and puts communities at risk.
Many species of waterbirds forage in the San Francisco Bay,
including Brant Geese and Surf Scoters, underscoring the
value of this ecosystem.
HR 1132 would authorize a San Francisco Bay Restoration
Grant Program in EPA and funding of up to $25m per year to
support the restoration of this estuary.
HR 1620--Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization Act
Salt marshes are special places to birds and other
wildlife, but sea level rise has elevated the waters in the
Chesapeake Bay by one foot during the 20th century and is
accelerating due to climate change. Salt marshes provide
valuable ``ecosystem services'', including nurseries for the
Chesapeake Bay's commercially important fish, a buffer
protecting coastal communities against storm surge, a filter
that stops nutrient and sediment pollution from entering the
Bay, and a recreational resource attracting visitors who
contribute millions of dollars to local economies. Chesapeake
Bay's salt marshes host globally significant populations of
both Saltmarsh Sparrow and Black Rail.
HR 1620 would increase the authorization of appropriations
for the Chesapeake Bay Program to more than $90m per year.
HR 2247--Promoting United Government Efforts to Save Our Sound Act
Despite significant investments in Puget Sound ecosystem
health by state, federal, tribal and local governments,
concerned members of the public, and conservation
organizations, progress towards ecosystem recovery targets
remains slow. The number of marine birds wintering in Puget
Sound has declined significantly in the last 30 years and
migratory, fisheating birds appear to be at the greatest
risk.
HR 2247 would authorize up to $50 million in funding for
Puget Sound recovery. The PUGET SOS Act also aligns federal
agency expertise and resources, ensuring that federal
agencies are coordinated, setting goals, and holding each
other accountable will help increase their effectiveness and
provide a boost to Puget Sound recovery.
HR 3779--Resilience Revolving Loan Fund Act of 2019
Pre-disaster planning can help communities adapt to the
changing flood patterns that threaten people and birds
species dependent on shoreline and riverine areas. These
changes have led to more frequent instances of ``nuisance
flooding,'' as well as catastrophic events. NOAA has found
that ``nuisance'' or ``sunny day'' flooding is up 300% to
900% than it was 50 years ago. In addition, catastrophic
flooding events have increased in both frequency and
intensity. These trends have been particularly pronounced in
the Northeast, Midwest and upper Great Plains, where the
amount of precipitation in large rainfall events has
increased more than 30 percent above the average observed
from 1901-1960. As sea level rise accelerates, it only
exacerbates these impacts, which further compounds
vulnerability in flood-prone communities.
HR 3779 would amend the 1988 Stafford Act to offer low-
interest loans to states for ``disaster mitigation
projects'', including investments in natural infrastructure
projects, which would help communities prepare and recover
from natural disasters.
We urge you to support and advance the bills listed above.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions.
Sincerely,
Julie Hill-Gabriel,
Vice President, Water Conservation,
National Audubon Society.
____
Save the Bay,
February 3, 2020.
Hon. Jackie Speier,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
HR 1132: Support
Dear Representative Speier: Save The Bay applauds your
introduction of HR 1132, the San Francisco Bay Restoration
Act, and encourages all Members of Congress to vote for its
passage on the House Floor this week. This initiative will
enhance the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's efforts
capacity to improve the health of San Francisco Bay, with
resources that are desperately needed at a time of
accelerating climate change.
Save The Bay is the oldest and largest membership
organization working exclusively to protect and restore San
Francisco Bay, with 50,000 members and supporters. As the
Bay's leading champion since 1961, Save The Bay is committed
to making the Bay cleaner and healthier for people and
wildlife, and HR 1132 would significantly advance that goal.
Over the last 150 years, the water quality and health of
the San Francisco Bay estuary have been diminished by
pollution, invasive species, loss of wetland habitat and
other factors. Improving bay water quality, restoring
critical habitat, and adapting to climate change in San
Francisco Bay, are urgent federal, state and regional
priorities that require additional funding. The Bay region is
fortunate to have in place well-developed science-based
plans, agencies, and collaborative structures to improve the
Bay's health, but more resources for implementation are
essential in the crucial decade ahead. The San Francisco Bay
Restoration Act would provide significant additional capacity
to improve the Bay, building efficiently on elements already
in place to improve our economy and the region's quality of
life.
In 2016, San Francisco Bay Area voters agreed to make an
unprecedented investment in San Francisco Bay Restoration,
approving a nine-county parcel tax specifically to accelerate
Bay tidal marsh restoration. Measure AA was approved by more
than 70 percent of the region's voters, and is raising $500
million over 20 years for grants to restoration projects,
most of which are occurring on federal property with the San
Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Matching federal
investment for this and other restoration work is overdue,
and HR 1132 would begin to address that need by authorizing
$25 million annually for those purposes.
HR 1132 also would address the inequity in funding for U.S.
EPA Geographic Programs, which are annually providing orders
of magnitude higher funding to other national estuaries under
strong statutory authority within the Clean Water Act. San
Francisco Bay deserves similar support and commitment as the
federal government currently provides to Chesapeake Bay,
Puget Sound and other locations, and HR 1132 begins to
rectify that disparity.
Each month provides evidence of added urgency and need for
the San Francisco Bay Program and resources that HR 1132
creates. Tidal marsh restoration is essential to protect Bay
wildlife habitat, and adjacent shoreline communities and
infrastructure from sea level rise. The recent Baylands
Habitat Goals Update underscored that tidal marsh
revegetation must be initiated wherever possible within the
next decade to stay ahead of rising seas, and the recent
California Legislative Analyst's Office report further
underscores the urgency of adaptation and resilience actions.
And as California Governor Gavin Newsom stated in January,
``We are experiencing a global climate crisis. One that has
irreversible impacts and is happening right now. This is not
something to deal with 10 years from now. Or 5 years from
now. Or 2 years from now. we need action. Now.''
We deeply appreciate the strong support from Speaker Pelosi
and the entire San Francisco Bay delegation for HR 1132. We
encourage the House of Representatives pass this bill
swiftly, and we pledge our continued assistance toward its
enactment. Thank you again for your leadership!
Sincerely,
David Lewis,
Executive Director.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of H.R. 1132. It represents good
governance by codifying the EPA's existing work in the San Francisco
Bay Area. The bay area watershed provides a primary source of drinking
water for over
[[Page H788]]
25 million people and irrigation for 7,000 square miles of agriculture.
It includes important economic resources, such as water supply
infrastructure, ports, deepwater shipping channels, major highway and
railway corridors, and energy lines.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this legislation, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, today, we are taking up the San Francisco
Bay Restoration Act. This is legislation I have introduced every year
since 2010. Since then, the environmental conditions of the bay have
only grown worse.
The bay is the heart of the region, with a vibrant ecosystem that is
home to the largest estuary on the West Coast. It generates more than
$370 billion in goods and services annually and is home to more than
3\1/2\ million jobs.
Forty percent of the land in California drains to the estuary, as my
colleagues have mentioned. It also is home to more than 100 endangered
and threatened species. The region's tidal and seasonal wetlands
comprise a significant portion of America's coastal resources, yet over
the past 200 years, 90 percent of the bay's wetlands have been
destroyed by human activity.
Increased pollution from cars, homes, and communities in San
Francisco have absorbed into various creeks, rivers, and streams that
flow into the bay and the Pacific Ocean. By 2030, the expected sea-
level rise in the bay area will exceed the rate at which the marshes
can elevate and move, effectively drowning them.
Despite the impending threats, Federal efforts for bay restoration
and pollution mitigation systems have failed to meet the enormous need.
Between 2008 and 2016, EPA's geographic programs invested only $45
million into the San Francisco Bay, while Puget Sound received over
$260 million and Chesapeake Bay $490 million. That is 10 times as much,
and the disparity becomes even more pronounced when you consider the
populations served. A mere $6 was spent on the bay for each resident of
the bay area, while almost $30 was spent for each resident living near
Chesapeake Bay and almost $60 per resident near Puget Sound.
In the most recent round of appropriations in early 2018, the San
Francisco Bay's appropriations remained at $4.8 million while smaller
geographic programs received substantially more, including Lake
Champlain with $8.3 million and Long Island Sound with $12 million.
The San Francisco Bay Restoration Act will authorize $25 million
annually for 5 years to fund water quality improvement efforts, wetland
and estuary restoration, endangered species recovery, and adaption to
climate change. We are just asking for our fair share of the dollars
set aside for estuary restoration.
{time} 1315
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time, and I commend my colleague, Jackie Speier, for her leadership on
this issue. And thanks also to the ranking member for recognizing the
importance, the critical national importance, of the San Francisco Bay
Estuary.
I have the fortune of representing a beautiful district that starts
at the Oregon border but goes all the way down to the Golden Gate
Bridge. That means I represent a good portion of San Francisco Bay, the
North Bay, where we understand all too well how much we have lost--90
percent of the Bay's wetlands have been destroyed.
Starting a century and-a-half ago, there has been incredible
degradation of this vital estuary beginning with the Gold Rush,
continuing to massive water diversions and pollution inputs, the diking
of wetlands, and so on. But despite all of that degradation, San
Francisco Bay continues to play a vital role ecologically in our region
and an even greater role economically.
We have hundreds of billions of dollars in economic activity every
year as a product of San Francisco Bay--outdoor recreation, commercial
and recreational fishing, travel and tourism. And we also see the very
real benefits in the San Francisco Bay area of coastal resiliency,
using natural systems as a buffer against rising sea levels.
The citizens of the nine-county Bay area have stepped up. We
recognize the national importance of this resource, and we have
supported a ballot measure to support climate adaption and restoration
funding. And now it is time for the Federal Government to do its part.
That is why I am so pleased to support Congresswoman Speier's bill, the
San Francisco Bay Restoration Act, to provide the much-needed Federal
partnership to help improve water quality in this important estuary to
revive the Bay's wetlands and to protect our coastal communities and
our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this important legislation, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I do urge all my colleagues to support
this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Heck). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1132, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________