[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 62 (Thursday, April 11, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H2296-H2298]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             FEDERAL COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT PROJECTS

  Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 524) to amend the Coastal Barrier Resources Act to create an 
exemption for certain shoreline borrow sites, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 524

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

     SECTION 1. FEDERAL COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT PROJECTS.

       Section 6(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 
     U.S.C. 3505(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(7) Use of a sand source within a System unit by Federal 
     coastal storm risk management projects or their predecessor 
     projects that have used a system unit for sand to nourish 
     adjacent beaches outside the System pursuant to section 5 of 
     the Act of August 18, 1941 (commonly known as the `Flood 
     Control Act of 1941') (55 Stat. 650, chapter 377; 33 U.S.C. 
     701n) at least once between December 31, 2008 and December 
     31, 2023 in response to an emergency situation prior to 
     December 31, 2023.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.

[[Page H2297]]

  



                             General Leave

  Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous material on H.R. 524, as amended, the bill 
now under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 524, sponsored by my colleague 
Congressman Rouzer of North Carolina. This bill amends the Coastal 
Barrier Resources Act, or CBRA, to ensure coastal communities have 
access to the resources they need to renourish their beaches, protect 
public safety, and strengthen their local economies.
  This bill would amend CBRA to ensure communities that have been using 
sites located within the CBRA's system as a source of sand to renourish 
beaches in response to an emergency between December 31, 2008, and 
December 31, 2023, will be allowed to continue doing so.
  Without it, communities like Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, in 
Mr. Rouzer's district, which has been using the same site for the last 
60 years to renourish its beach, would be left with few realistic and 
cost-effective options to carry out their necessary projects, which 
serve as a critical tool in protecting vulnerable communities.
  As we heard from the mayor of Wrightsville Beach at the hearing on 
this bill, enacting H.R. 524 would enable both the Federal Government 
and local governments to achieve the primary goals of CBRA at a lower 
cost to taxpayers by avoiding the necessity to complete beach 
nourishment using sand from offshore sites.
  For example, the most recent completed beach nourishment event took 
place in 2018 at a cost of $11.9 million. If Wrightsville Beach is 
forced to utilize an offshore borrow site, costs could exceed $25 
million for the same project.
  This is a commonsense bill that protects coastal communities while 
accomplishing the goals of CBRA.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, or CBRA 
as we call it, is a great example of successful Federal land 
management. When President Reagan signed it in 1982, he explained that 
without this statute, the Federal Government would be subsidizing 
development in risky areas and would subsequently be on the hook for 
disaster costs when storms inevitably hit these vulnerable regions.
  He said that CBRA would ``halt the Federal subsidy spiral,'' by 
discouraging Federal investments in development on storm-prone coastal 
lands, lands that, if developed, would put human lives and property at 
risk, and also cost taxpayers billions of dollars in disaster relief.
  In the years since this law was enacted, the U.S. taxpayer has saved 
over $9.5 billion in disaster costs alone and the act has protected 
millions of acres of habitat.
  Mr. Speaker, I will hand it to President Reagan. Signing this bill 
into law was actually in line with conservative conservation, mainly 
because CBRA was and is the type of innovative policy we need to 
conserve habitat and make our coastlines more resilient to climate 
change, all while saving American taxpayers money.
  I thank Mr. Rouzer for working with Democrats to produce a bill that 
we can all support today. As the bill was originally introduced, it 
would have amended CBRA to allow taxpayer dollars to subsidize taking 
sand from CBRA units for beach renourishment at a handful of beaches 
outside the CBRA system.
  Without careful limits, this practice can be destructive to fish and 
wildlife habitat. It can also cause more erosion for communities 
downdrift of the sand borrow site.
  I said during our hearing and our markup on this bill that if we are 
going to grant an exception to CBRA like this, we need to be careful. 
We need to ensure that it is in the spirit of CBRA, meaning that we 
need to first protect habitat and coastal barriers and not let Federal 
subsidies spiral into a cascade of more and more Federal subsidies in 
these areas.
  Democrats raised this concern during committee consideration, and I 
thank Mr. Rouzer and my other colleagues across the aisle for working 
with us and finding a bipartisan solution.
  This amended version of the bill that we are voting on today would 
instead provide that, in the case of a federally declared disaster and 
with careful environmental analysis, a narrow exemption can be granted 
for using a CBRA unit as a borrow site for towns in a state of 
emergency.
  With this clarifying language, I am pleased to support the solution 
and the revised bill. I do also hope that this bill's passage in the 
House will help build some momentum for the broader CBRA package that 
Representatives Kiggans and Blunt Rochester, as well as Senators Carper 
and Graham and others have been negotiating.
  We need responsible, equitable, science-based management of public 
lands and taxpayer dollars, and I think this updated version of H.R. 
524, in combination with that broader CBRA package, would achieve that 
objective by addressing the issues at hand and protecting the integrity 
of the CBRA system.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 524, a bill I introduced to 
amend the Coastal Barrier Resources Act to create an exemption for 
certain shoreline borrow sites.

  This legislation, which passed the House Natural Resources Committee 
unanimously, resolves an issue for a handful of coastal communities 
that have unique and longstanding beach nourishment project borrow 
sites.
  For background, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 created 
certain protected coastal zones, known as CBRA zones, along the 
Atlantic, Gulf, and coasts of the Great Lakes.
  Under that law, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prohibits Federal 
investment in these areas due to the risk associated with coastal 
natural disasters. While this is intended to protect human life and 
taxpayer dollars, in a few select cases for which this bill is focused, 
a recent revision of implementation has inadvertently created 
uncertainty for these longstanding projects necessary to keep these 
coastal communities safe during storms.
  For example, and as has already been cited, Wrightsville Beach, North 
Carolina, which is in my district, has been utilizing sand from 
Masonboro Inlet for their beach nourishment project for more than 50 
years. The natural erosion of sand from the beach is guided by the 
current and continually deposits south of the beach in Masonboro Inlet.
  Every 4 years, just like clockwork, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
has dredged the inlet of this sand and returned it to Wrightsville 
Beach.
  For 50 years, this natural cycle has served as a reliable ecological 
borrow site for our coastal community and, by the way, is home to an 
abundance of wildlife. Placement of the sand solidifies the dunes and 
berms, creating a natural protective barrier for the community that 
protects both property and life. This process has been the most cost-
effective and ecologically friendly for other coastal communities with 
similar natural erosion cycles as well.
  To share a little more history for perspective, CBRA zones eliminated 
the use of these natural borrow sites for nourishment purposes with the 
enactment of the 1982 law. However, shortly after enactment of that 
law, a clarification was made to prevent communities like Wrightsville 
Beach to use these historic borrow sites. Literally decades later, that 
clarification was reversed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the 
request of the Department of the Interior in 2021, undoing decades of 
precedent and preventing these communities from using such site.
  Under the current interpretation, communities such as mine at 
Wrightsville Beach would be forced to dredge offshore, leading to 
skyrocketing costs for taxpayers, not to mention changing the natural 
ecology of these areas in ways that may have significant unintended 
consequences.

[[Page H2298]]

Reversing this action to, once again, permit the use of a beach's 
natural, historic borrow site is imperative for physical resiliency and 
safety, as well as the local economic benefits that accrue. Further, it 
will save taxpayer dollars and protect the ecology of these areas that 
has developed over all these years.
  Mr. Speaker, simply put, the bill before us today resolves this issue 
for good by putting the original decades-old clarification into law. It 
allows for the use of historical borrow sites within a CBRA zone 
provided such site has been utilized for the past 15 years in response 
to an emergency.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support passage of this 
legislation. I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for 
their work with me to produce this bipartisan project that solves a 
real problem for many in these particular communities.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the 
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, America is blessed with pristine coastlines that are 
both vital ecosystems and vital economic engines. CBRA is an important 
safeguard that helps us as a Nation balance these two important 
factors. H.R. 524 furthers this ideal by ensuring that local 
communities who rely on beach renourishment projects to protect their 
citizens and their beaches can responsibly continue to do so.
  I thank Congressman Rouzer, once again, for his leadership on this 
legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 524, 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.

                          ____________________