[House Report 104-452]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                                       
104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     104-452
_______________________________________________________________________



 
          CORRECTIONS TO COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM MAPS
_______________________________________________________________________


January 24, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______


  Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2100]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 2100) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to make 
technical corrections to maps relating to the Coastal Barrier 
Resources System, having considered the same, report favorably 
thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as 
amended do pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. CORRECTIONS TO MAPS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall, before the 
end of the 30-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
Act, make such corrections to the maps described in subsection (b) as 
are necessary to ensure that depictions of areas on those maps are 
consistent with the depictions of areas appearing on the maps entitled 
``Amendments to Coastal Barrier Resources System'', dated November 1, 
1995, and on file with the Secretary.
    (b) Maps Described.--The maps described in this subsection are maps 
that--
          (1) are included in a set of maps entitled ``Coastal Barrier 
        Resources System'', dated October 24, 1990; and
          (2) relate to the following units of the Coastal Barrier 
        Resources System: P05, P05A, P10, P11, P11A, P18, P25, P32, and 
        P32P.

                          purpose of the bill

    The purpose of H.R. 2100 is to direct the Secretary of the 
Interior to make technical corrections to maps relating to 
certain units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System.

                  background and need for legislation

    Coastal barriers are typically elongated, narrow landforms 
composed of sand and other loose sediments transported by 
currents, waves, and wind. The term ``barrier'' is used to 
refer to a structure that protects other features such as 
lagoons, wetlands, and salt marshes from direct wave and wind 
action.
    The major types of coastal barriers include barrier 
islands, barrier spits and bay barriers. These barrier systems 
usually enclose estuaries and lagoons which serve as nursery 
grounds for numerous marine species. The protective properties 
of these landforms are especially important for maintaining the 
productivity of near-shore coastal areas.
    The Coastal Barrier Resources System consists of coastal 
barrier units which are delineated on maps adopted by Congress. 
These units consist of undeveloped sections of coastal barrier 
islands and the associated aquatic habitat which lies behind 
these barriers.
    In 1981, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) 
amended the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to prohibit 
the issuance of new Federal flood insurance after October 1, 
1983, ``for any new construction or for substantial 
improvements of structures located on undeveloped coastal 
barriers.'' OBRA directed the Secretary of the Interior to 
designate coastal barriers under the definition contained in 
OBRA and to recommend to Congress additional areas for 
inclusion in the System.
    In August 1982, the Secretary submitted to Congress 
recommendations for a definition of ``coastal barrier'' and a 
list of 188 areas for inclusion in the System. The report used 
a density threshold of one structure per five acres to 
categorize a barrier as undeveloped. The Secretary also defined 
``structure'' to mean a legally constructed building larger 
than 200 square feet in area, regardless of the number or size 
of housing units it contains. Only areas with greater than \1/
4\ mile of beachfront were included in the System. However, the 
\1/4\ mile minimum may be a combination of beachfront contained 
in System units and adjacent, otherwise protected areas.
    Acting on the report's recommendations, Congress passed the 
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA, Public Law 97-348) in the 
fall of 1982. The law embodied three major goals: to minimize 
loss of human life by discouraging development in high-hazard 
areas, to protect natural resources along the coast and to 
reduce Federal expenditures. A 1981 study estimated that 
without any change in law, the Federal Government would spend 
between $5.5 and $11 billion on undeveloped coastal barriers 
over the next 20 years.
    CBRA formally established the Coastal Barrier Resources 
System, consisting of 186 units totaling 666 miles of shoreline 
and 452,834 acres of undeveloped, unprotected coastal barriers 
on the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. System units are 
marked on maps prepared and maintained by the Department of the 
Interior (DOI) and enacted into law by Congress. Except for 
very minor technical changes, boundaries cannot be adjusted, 
and units cannot be added or deleted from the System unless 
Congress approves a law revising these maps.
    In 1988, Congress enacted the Great Lakes Coastal Barrier 
Act (Public Law 100-711). This law directed DOI to identify 
barrier lands in the Great Lakes region that merited inclusion 
in the System. DOI recommended the inclusion of 112 Great Lakes 
units.
    In 1990, Congress adopted the Coastal Barrier Improvement 
Act (Public Law 101-591), which added many Great Lakes units to 
the System and made other changes recommended by DOI. After 
passage of this Act, the System contained approximately 1.272 
million acres of undeveloped coastal barrier (``fastland'') and 
associated aquatic habitat, 1,200 miles of coastline and 560 
units. The 1990 Act also required that DOI prepare maps of 
undeveloped coastal barrier units on the Pacific Coast and 
included ``otherwise protected areas'' as part of the System 
for purposes of Federal flood insurance. These recommendations 
are expected to be submitted to Congress next year. The Act 
also required Federal agency self-certification of compliance 
with CBRA.
    Since 1990, Congress has acted twice, in 1992 and 1994, to 
amend the boundaries of System units, primarily by removing 
property from the System.
    Despite the enactment of CBRA, construction of buildings in 
high-risk coastal areas still occurs today. While CBRA places 
no restrictions on lands outside the System, development with 
the various units is prohibited unless individuals obtain non-
Federal financial support for flood insurance and 
infrastructure improvements.
    Inclusion of property in the System does not prevent 
private development of that property, nor does it prevent 
actions necessary to process and issue Federal permits 
necessary for development. However, it does place significant 
restrictions on the availability of any new Federal assistance 
to develop the property.
    Of particular importance, after October 1, 1983, no new 
Federal flood insurance can be issued for properties in the 
System. Existing flood insurance policies for existing 
properties remain in force. If the property is damaged, it 
cannot be rebuilt if the cost of rebuilding is more than 50 
percent of the value of the property. Insured properties 
outside of the System can be rebuilt even if the entire 
property is destroyed. If an insured structure in the System is 
substantially expanded or replaced with more intensive 
development, coverage is lost.
    In addition to the flood insurance limitation, CBRA 
prohibits most new Federal expenditures and financial 
assistance within the System if those expenditures encourage 
development. Examples of prohibited Federal expenditures 
include: community block grants, disaster relief, Federal Home 
Administration housing loans, flood control and beach erosion 
projects and water systems and wastewater treatment grants.
    For purposes of CBRA, Federal financial assistance does not 
include deposit insurance, purchase of mortgages by government 
chartered corporations, and programs unrelated to development, 
such as entitlement payments to individuals. Other exceptions 
are provided for assistance for Federal navigation projects, 
energy resources projects, roads, military and Coast Guard 
activities, and actions such as scientific research when it is 
consistent with the purposes of CBRA.
    It is interesting to note that undeveloped areas are often 
next to developed areas. Therefore, Federal assistance may be 
available for the development of one property, but unavailable 
for adjacent property.

                            committee action

    H.R. 2100 was introduced on July 24, 1995, by Congresswoman 
Tillie Fowler to make boundary adjustments to nine System units 
in Florida. The bill was cosponsored by the seven members of 
the Florida delegation in whose districts changes are proposed. 
These included Congressmen John Mica, Dave Weldon, Mark Foley, 
Porter Goss and Pete Peterson and Congresswoman Karen Thurman.
    The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources, and 
within the Committee to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife 
and Oceans. On July 27, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
on H.R. 2100. Representatives Fowler and Foley testified in 
strong support of the bill. The Administration and the Coast 
Alliance expressed opposition to the measure.
    On November 7, 1995, the Subcommittee met to mark up H.R. 
2100. Congressman Jim Saxton offered an amendment to delete 
changes to two of the units, P04A and FL-90, thus retaining the 
acreage in the System. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. 
The bill, as amended, was ordered favorably reported to the 
Full Committee by a rollcall vote of 5-3, as follows:
    Date: November 7, 1995.
    Bill Number(s): H.R. 2100, as amended.
    Rollcall: Yeas: 5; Nays: 3.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Members                 Yea       Nay     Present        Members          Yea       Nay     Present 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Saxton, Chairman...........        X   ........  .........  Mr. Studds.......  ........        X   .........
Mr. Young......................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Miller.......  ........        X   .........
                                                                Mr. Gejdenson....  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Gilchrest..................  ........        X   .........  Mr. Ortiz........        X   ........  .........
Mr. Torkildsen.................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Farr.........  ........  ........  .........
Mrs. Smith.....................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Pallone......  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Jones......................        X   ........  .........  .................  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Metcalf....................        X   ........  .........  .................  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Langley....................        X   ........  .........  .................  ........  ........  .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 13, 1995, the Full Resources Committee met to 
consider H.R. 2100. Chairman Don Young offered an amendment to 
delete the change to Unit P08, thus retaining 65 acres in the 
System, and to add changes to Unit P32. The amendment was 
adopted by voice vote. The bill, as amended, was ordered 
favorably reported to the House of Representatives, in the 
presence of a quorum, on a rollcall vote of 23-12, as follows:
    Date: December 13, 1995.
    Roll No.: 1.
    Bill No. H.R. 2100
    Short title: Coastal Barrier Resources System.
    Amendment or matter voted on: Final passage.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Members                 Yea       Nay     Present        Members          Yea       Nay     Present 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Young, Chairman............        X   ........  .........  Mr. Miller.......  ........        X   .........
Mr. Tauzin.....................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Markey.......  ........        X   .........
Mr. Hansen.....................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Rahall.......  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Saxton.....................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Vento........  ........        X   .........
Mr. Gallegly...................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Kildee.......  ........        X   .........
Mr. Duncan.....................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Williams.....  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Hefley.....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Gejdenson....  ........        X   .........
Mr. Doolittle..................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Richardson...  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Allard.....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. DeFazio......  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Gilchrest..................  ........        X   .........  Mr. Faleomavaega.  ........        X   .........
Mr. Calvert....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Johnson......  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Pombo......................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Abercrombie..  ........        X   .........
Mr. Torkildsen.................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Studds.......  ........        X   .........
Mr. Hayworth...................        X   ........  .........  .................  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Cremeans...................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Ortiz........        X   ........  .........
Mrs. Cubin.....................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Pickett......        X   ........  .........
Mr. Cooley.....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Pallone......  ........        X   .........
Mrs. Chenoweth.................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Dooley.......        X   ........  .........
Mrs. Smith.....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Romero-        ........  ........  .........
                                                                 Barcelo.                                       
Mr. Radanovich.................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Hinchey......  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Jones......................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Underwood....        X   ........  .........
Mr. Thornberry.................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Farr.........  ........        X   .........
Mr. Hastings...................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Kennedy......  ........        X   .........
Mr. Metcalf....................        X   ........  .........                                                  
Mr. Longley....................        X   ........  .........                                                  
Mr. Shadegg....................        X   ........  .........                                                  
Mr. Ensign.....................        X   ........  .........                                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

SECTION 1. CORRECTIONS TO MAPS.

    Section 1 of H.R. 2100 makes corrections to Coastal Barrier 
System Units P05, P05A, P10, P11, P11A, P18, P25 and P32. These 
units are located in Florida. These corrections remove roughly 
35 acres of land in Florida from the 1.272-million-acre Coastal 
Barrier Resources System. Two hundred eighty-five thousand 
System acres are located in Florida, including 34,000 acres of 
fastland. An additional 37,000 acres in Florida are included in 
otherwise protected areas. The State of Florida supports the 
changes proposed for P10, P18, P25 and P32.
    Generally, these changes involve removing areas that were 
undeveloped according to the DOI criteria in use at the time 
the areas were included in the System but which: (1) contained 
some development prior to the inclusion of the unit within the 
System; (2) had permits for development received prior to 
inclusion in the System; (3) had significant private capital 
invested in development prior to inclusion in the System; and/
or (4) are parts of larger developments with portions in and 
out of the System.
    Union P05 was created in 1982, and is located in Vilano 
Beach, St. Johns County. H.R. 2100 would exclude from the 
2,160-acre unit 41 lots on less than 10 acres of land. These 
are part of a 145-lot residential community known as Porpoise 
Point. The new boundary more accurately reflects the division 
between developed and undeveloped property.
    At the time of its inclusion, a water treatment facility on 
the affected property was fully constructed. One private 
residence was completed. The property proposed for exclusion, 
but not the whole unit, met the development threshold of one 
structure per five acres in 1982. Additionally, 14 other lots 
in the affected area had been sold. The community had all paved 
roads and electric utilities in place. This amendment would 
allow all property owners within the development to be treated 
equally for purposes of obtaining flood insurance.
    Unit P05A was created in 1982 and is located in St. Johns 
County. H.R. 2100 would exclude eight noncontiguous beachfront 
residential lots comprising less than seven acres from the 
2,871-acre unit. These lots are located in the Summer Haven 
community.
    Construction of the eight residences on these lots predate 
the deadline for construction imposed by the October 1982 
designation of the area as a System unit. Therefore, these 
properties are eligible for flood insurance if they had it 
prior to the designation. The lot numbers and the dates of 
development are as follows: 15-1 (1930); 23-1 (1979); 23-2 
(1980); 36 (1983); 37 (1981); 39 (1981); 44 (1981); and 46 
(1982). Other residences have been built since 1983 in the 
area. Those properties would remain in the System.
    Unit P10 was created in 1982, and amended in 1990. It is 
located in Indian River County. H.R. 2100 excludes 
approximately 8.5 acres from the 439-acre unit. In 1990, the 
adjacent north portion of the P10 Unit was excluded from the 
P10 Unit when DOI made a finding that the area had been 
developed in 1982 to at least one structure per five acres. 
Development had also occurred before 1982 on an additional 8.5 
acres to the south of and adjacent to the land excluded in 
1990. This amendment excludes that adjacent property.
    The 8.5 acres now contain five single-family homes and 
three lots. Homes were constructed on Lots 1 and 2 in 1978 in 
the Hallmark Ocean subdivision. Electric facilities and septic 
systems were constructed to those homes by that time, and a 
road was built to service these properties in 1976.
    Two additional lots in the Hallmark Ocean subdivision were 
in initial stages of development by 1982. In 1980, the 
subdivision road was extended to reach these properties. Lot 4 
was cleared, filled, and graded in 1978 in preparation for 
building a home. By 1981, the owner obtained a building permit, 
well permit, and septic system permit. He had conducted a land 
survey, obtained zoning and health permits, designed building 
plans, and performed clearing, hauling, and filling. 
Construction was completed later. Lots No. 1 and 2 continue to 
be eligible for existing flood insurance on their property if 
it was in place prior to 1982. However, the house on Lot No. 4, 
although site work had begun in 1978, is not eligible for flood 
insurance.
    Unit P11 was created in 1990, and is located on Hutchinson 
Island in St. Lucie County. H.R. 2100 would exclude 15 acres 
from the 15,145-acre unit. The property: (1) was part of the 
larger Island Dunes project; (2) included underlying and 
supporting infrastructure (e.g., a water main extension to 
serve the entire project) and an existing structure (clubhouse) 
and recreational facilities; (3) had been cleared and had 
access roads in place; and (4) was on the verge of the final 
phase of construction. Now three identical buildings of a five-
building development has flood insurance while the two that are 
included in the System do not. A tennis court and water 
treatment plant were already built on the property included in 
the System in 1990.
    Unit P11A was created in 1990 and is located in Martin 
County. H.R. 2100 removes a 10.4-acre parcel and an 8-acre 
parcel from the 600-acre unit.
    The 10.4-acre parcel is part of Santa Lucea, a county-
approved, single-family community. The community has been in 
continuous development since 1979. The owners had already 
invested substantial funds in developing the property before it 
was added to the System, including constructing and operating a 
sewer system, constructing a water system, obtaining multiple 
county and State development approvals, building a road, and 
paying numerous county and State development impact fees. In 
1990, Congress excluded the land in which the sewage treatment 
plant was built, but not the land which the plant was built to 
serve and which contained the underground transmission pipes.
    The owners purchased land for the development in 1979. In 
1981, Martin County approved the development's Final 
Development Plan. Santa Lucea Associates obtained multiple 
Florida Department on Environmental Regulation (DER) and Martin 
County permits for construction of a water storage and 
distribution system. It constructed the water system for a 
total cost of $76,000, including construction and utility 
hookup fees.
    Santa Lucea Associates bought land for a sewer system that 
would serve its property and The Dunes, a neighboring 
community. After receiving multiple DER permits, Santa Lucea 
Associates constructed a wastewater collection system, a sewage 
collection and transmission system, and a sewage treatment 
facility. It has operated the system as a public utility since 
1981. Its total investment, including land acquisition and 
construction, is $300,000.
    In late 1981-1982, Santa Lucea Associates invested $278,000 
in an initial marketing effort, including landscaping the 
grounds, building a sales center, performing site development, 
and building a road and parking area. The State Department of 
Natural Resources issued a permit for a beach/dune walkover 
structure, built in late 1981 at a cost of $18,000. Santa Lucea 
Associates put up a construction bond for the development. The 
project as originally proposed was not built. The current 
project proposal is to build single-family residences, thus 
reducing the project's density and assisting Martin County's 
goal of controlling the growth and environmental impact of 
development.
    After its initial unsuccessful sales effort, Santa Lucea 
Associates has continuously prepared for further development of 
the property. It paid $41,000 for road and parks and fire 
engine impacts. It kept its construction bond in force. It 
operated the sewer utility. It paid water reservation fees of 
$41,000 to ensure availability of water. It incurred over 
$2,029,000 in interest charges. Infrastructure development had 
occurred and substantial funds had been invested, all before 
the land was added to the System. However, the property did not 
meet the density requirement to be considered developed when it 
was included in the System.
    The 8-acre parcel is part of Indian River Plantation, a 
200-acre Planned Unit Development approved in August, 1976. The 
property has been under continuous phased development since 
that time. By November 1990, developers had completed nearly 
all of the infrastructure and amenities serving the resort and 
the 1,199-unit residential community. Effective that date, 
Indian River Plantation included a 20-room resort hotel, a 
marina, a golf course, several restaurants and related 
amenities, a water and sewer plant and 899 residential units.
    Development by November of 1990 represented over $106 
million of construction improvements, excluding land. The 
developers completed two additional phases between November 
1990 and December 1993. Phase XVII (Oceanhouse), an 80-unit 
oceanfront condominium, was completed in September 1991 at a 
cost of $18.3 million, and Phase XV (Beachwalk), a 56-unit 
condominium, was completed in December 1993 at a cost of $8 
million. Phase XII (Baker Point), a planned and approved 144-
unit riverfront condominium, is the only remaining uncompleted 
phase of the project.
    In 1990, Congress included acreage in and around Baker 
Point in Unit P11A. Prior to the time of inclusion, development 
had occurred on Baker Point, the area proposed for exclusion. 
Baker Point was also not in its natural state. It had been 
extensively dredged and filled in the late 1970's. As early as 
1982, the developers had installed footer pilings for a 12-unit 
building. That work was stopped and later those pilings were 
removed.
    In addition, the Indian River Plantation developers had 
constructed all the infrastructure to serve Baker Point. In 
1977, the developers built the water and sewer plant serving 
Indian River Plantation. When they built the road to Baker 
Point in 1981, the developers installed all the water, sewer, 
electric, and telephone transmission lines necessary to serve 
the community. Roads, water, sewer, and electric utilities 
serving the development were all in place by mid-1982.
    The developers doubled the main sewer and water plant 
capacity in 1987 at a cost of $1.5 million. This addition gave 
the utility sufficient capacity to serve Baker Point and the 
other phases of the community. However, these utilities had not 
actually been extended onto the Baker Point tract prior to 
1990.
    By November 1990, the developers had expended over $8 
million to develop the entire property, including the phases 
located outside of the System, and secured approval for this 
final phase. The developers estimate they had paid 
approximately $732,000 for Baker Point's proportionate shore of 
the site amenities, roads, sewer, water, telephone and electric 
costs, and $240,000 for its share of the water and sewer main 
plant cost. In addition to these utility and infrastructure 
costs as of November 1990, Baker Point represented over $7.2 
million of land, development, engineering, overhead, and 
interest.
    Since November 1990, the developers estimate they have 
incurred over $1.1 million of costs relating to impact fees to 
Martin County ($130,000); site development costs ($35,000); 
engineers and architects ($150,000); legal ($108,000); and 
overhead and interest ($701,000). The expenditures were 
necessary to preserve the developers' rights under the approved 
Martin County development plan.
    This amendment will allow all the components of Indian 
River Plantation to be treated equally for purposes of flood 
insurance. Currently, buildings within the complex are treated 
differently based on their inclusion or exclusion from the 
System.
    Unit P18 was created in 1982 and is located in Lee County, 
Florida. H.R. 2100 would remove the 7.5-acre Captiva Landings 
subdivision from the 428-acre unit. This subdivision contains 
eight residential lots. Four of these lots contained insurable 
structures in 1982 when the area was added to the System. The 
unit also contains less than 1/4 acre of beachfront.
    County Road 867 intersects the unit, which measures 
approximately 750 feet at its widest point in the affected area 
and 310 feet at its narrowest point. In 1982, an average of 
4,985 vehicles per day traveled this stretch of road, according 
to the Lee County Department of Transportation. In addition to 
the homes, telephone and water service to the affected area was 
installed by 1966. Electrical service has been available to 
these lots since 1940. Cable for television service was 
installed in 1981.
    By 1982, human activities had significantly impeded the 
natural geomorphic and ecological processes occurring on the 
island. Since 1961, Captiva Island's shoreline has been 
modified by various manmade erosion control devices. Lee County 
has installed concrete groins, over 100,000 cubic yards of rock 
and sand, nylon sand bags and rock groins. Individual property 
owners have privately financed the installation of seawalls and 
sandbagged approximately 40 percent of Captiva Island since 
1970.
    Unit P25 was created in 1990, and is located in Levy 
County. H.R. 2100 excludes the 5-acre Old Fenimore Mill site 
from the 17,415-acre unit. Old Fenimore Mill has been in use as 
a commercial or industrial site since the mid-1800s. Old 
Fenimore Mill Condominiums is an approved, multi-family resort, 
and is the second largest project ever built in Levy County.
    The five acres of land were not included in the System in 
the original 1982 Act, nor in the DOI's draft report to 
Congress in 1988. The land was added to Unit P25 in 1990. All 
similarly situated, immediately adjacent land was specifically 
excluded from the System.
    At the time of its inclusion, the five-acre parcel had six 
structures which included two two-story residences, two 
warehouses, a two-story concrete block building and another 
600-square-foot building with foundation and roof.
    Unit P32 was created in 1982, and is located in Okaloosa 
County and the City of Destin. H.R. 2100 would exclude an 
approximately 4.24-acre parcel from the 4364-acre unit. The 
4.24-acre parcel fronts U.S. Highway 98. Two other areas, 
located on either side of the parcel, were developed to the 
same level and were not included in the System.
    U.S. Highway 98 is the only east/west corridor between Fort 
Walton Beach and Sandestin. The parcel had one single-family 
home built before 1982 as well as public water, electricity, 
cable TV, and telephone service already in place for continued 
development. Immediately to the east and west of this parcel, 
properties developed to the same level were excluded from the 
designation. All of those properties were zoned by Okaloosa 
County for business/tourism uses. When the City of Destin was 
incorporated in 1984, it upheld this zoning designation.
    This bill excludes the 4.24-acre parcel from the System, 
adds 7.1 acres of undeveloped property, adds 28 acres of State 
park land, and redesignates the State park located in the unit 
as an otherwise protected area.

            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    With respect to the requirements of clause 2(l)(3) of rule 
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and clause 
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
the Committee on Resources' oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

                     INFLATIONARY IMPACT STATEMENT

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that the 
enactment of H.R. 2100 will have no significant inflationary 
impact on prices and costs in the operation of the national 
economy.

                        COST OF THE LEGISLATION

    Clause 7(a) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the 
Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out 
H.R. 2100. However, clause 7(d) of that Rule provides that this 
requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in 
its report a timely submitted cost estimates of the bill 
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                     COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XI

    1. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(B) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, H.R. 
2100 does not contain any new budget authority, spending 
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in tax 
expenditures. The bill does contain in revenue from premiums 
collected into the national flood insurance fund and would 
increase the likelihood of additional losses associated with 
payments from the national flood insurance program.
    2. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(D) of 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee has 
received no report of oversight findings and recommendations 
from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight on the 
subject of H.R. 2100.
    3. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(C) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 
2100 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, January 22, 1996.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
reviewed H.R. 2100, the Coastal Barrier Resources System 
Fairness Act of 1995, as ordered reported by the House 
Committee on Resources on December 13, 1995. Because the bill 
would affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would 
apply. However, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2100 would 
result in no significant cost to the federal government.
    H.R. 2100 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to 
exclude several parcels of land in Florida from the Coastal 
Barrier Resources System. The bill also would add an additional 
parcel to the system, resulting in a net reduction of about 35 
acres. The proposed exclusions would enable the owners of these 
parcels to obtain federal flood insurance for houses and other 
local development projects. As a result, offsetting collections 
into the national flood insurance fund from premiums (net of 
additional mandatory spending for underwriting and other 
administrative activities) would increase by less than $500,000 
each year. Enacting the bill would increase the likelihood of 
additional federal costs for losses associated with any future 
floods, but CBO has no basis for predicting such potential 
costs.
    This bill would impose new intergovernmental or private 
sector mandates, as defined in Public Law 104-4. CBO expects 
that enacting this legislation would have no direct impact on 
the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.
            Sincerely,
                                         June E. O'Neill, Director.

                        changes in existing law

    If enacted, H.R. 2100 would make no changes in existing 
law.

                          departmental reports

    The Committee has received no departmental reports on H.R. 
2100.
  DISSENTING VIEWS OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, HON. GERRY E. STUDDS, HON. 
    BRUCE F. VENTO, HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., AND HON. DALE E. KILDEE

    We oppose H.R. 2100 because it does not make technical 
corrections to the Coastal Barrier Resources System. It makes 
substantive changes to the System that reinstate federal 
subsidies currently denied by law to developers and owners of 
expensive oceanfront property in Florida. Supporters of this 
legislation have sought to portray the inclusion of these 
properties in the System as errors in the interpretation of 
mapping criteria by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. To the 
contrary, most of the boundary changes proposed by H.R. 2100 
were considered in the last Congress and were rejected because 
a field team of Congressional staff and experts from the Fish 
and Wildlife Service had verified that these areas correctly 
included in the System.
    The supporters of H.R. 2100 argue that these properties 
should be removed from the System because there was some 
development present at the time of their inclusion. They have 
misinterpreted the mapping conventions used by the Department 
of the Interior; CBRA was never intended to exclude all 
development. In recommending areas for inclusion in the System, 
the Department of the Interior has two main tests regarding 
development. Land developed to a density of greater than one 
completed structure per five acres of fastland is not proposed 
to be included in the System. Plans for future development, 
including zoning, platting, permits, and building plans are not 
grounds for exclusion from the System. Areas developed to a 
lower density may be excluded if they include ``intensive 
capitalized development'', such as condominiums, on the site--
not adjacent to the site--being considered for inclusion. None 
of the areas proposed to be removed from the System by H.R. 
2100 satisfy these criteria.
    Supporters of the bill have also ignored the fact that it 
is Congress, not the Department of the Interior, that codified 
the Coastal Barrier System, and reviewed the merits of most of 
these cases in 1982, again in 1990, and again in 1994. If we 
continually re-examine the System in light of new and creative 
interpretations of the mapping criteria, we will undermine the 
integrity of the Coastal Barrier Resources System.
    The Federal Government, through the National Flood 
Insurance program (NFIP), provides over $325 billion in 
coverage against flood damage in all fifty states and the 
territories. Nearly half of this coverage is for properties in 
Florida. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
which administers the federal flood insurance program, payments 
for claims in Florida in 1995 alone exceed $550 million. The 
NFIP has the authority to borrow up to $500 million directly 
from the U.S. Treasury. It has already had to borrow $265 
million from the U.S. Treasury to pay claims in 1995, and it 
has only begun to process the more than 10,000 claims 
associated with Hurricane Opal, the most destructive hurricane 
to hit the U.S. coastline since Andrew ripped through southern 
Florida in 1992.
    Two factors give cause for concern about the solvency of 
the NFIP: the rapid increase in coastal development over the 
last few decades and predicted increases in hurricane 
frequency. According to an April, 1995 report issued by the 
Insurance Institute for Property Loss Reduction, the value of 
insured coastal property has nearly tripled in the last decade. 
This is because both the amount and the value of coastal 
development are increasing. Prominent atmospheric scientists at 
the University of Colorado and with the National Weather 
Service agree that we are entering a period of increased 
hurricane activity. Sea level is already rising along the 
Atlantic and Gulf coasts, while common predictions of the 
effects of global climate change include an increase in the 
rate of sea level rise and an increase in the frequency and 
severity of coastal storms. These factors combine to make it 
prudent to take steps to protect property owners and the 
taxpayers from the risks of unwise coastal development.
    In the early 1980s, the Reagan Administration proposed to 
limit subsidies for development of geologically unstable and 
ecologically fragile coastal barriers. Enacted in 1982, the 
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) denies federal financial 
assistance--including flood insurance and federal funds for 
roads, sewers, and other infrastructure--for development of 
barrier islands, barrier spits, and other exposed coastal areas 
that provide important protection to the mainland from the 
combined forces of wind, waves, and current. The Department of 
the Interior has estimated that development subsidies cost the 
taxpayers about $82,000 per developed acre of coastline (in 
inflation-adjusted dollars). The principle behind CBRA is 
simple: It is irresponsible for the government to promote 
development that puts people in harm's way, exposes the 
taxpayers to significant financial liability, and frequently 
arrests the natural geological processes that protect our 
coastline.
    Supporters of H.R. 2100 have argued that federal flood 
insurance is not subsidized because the program has, since 
1987, been financed entirely by flood insurance premiums. 
However, prior to 1987, the program had been appropriated $1.2 
billion to pay claims and only about half of this has been 
repaid to the Treasury. The NFIP is authorized to borrow up to 
$500 million directly from the Treasury, which is, in a sense, 
a subsidy in itself. A generally accepted definition of a 
subsidy is a good or service provided for less than fair market 
value. Because commercial flood insurance is very expensive, if 
it is available at all in high risk areas like coastal 
barriers, the provision by the government of low cost flood 
insurance represents a subsidy.
    In recent years, the NFIP has remained solvent by using 
present premiums to pay for past claims. Because of its low 
rates, the program does not maintain a large cash reserve 
against a bad claims year--as any commercial insurance 
underwriter does, making it especially vulnerable during a 
period of high hurricane activity. This also creates a 
situation, sometimes called a ``cross subsidy'', where 
policyholders in low risk areas are subsidizing those in high 
risk areas. In Florida, FEMA considers 24 percent of the 
policies to be subsidized. If these policies are subsidized and 
the program remains solvent, they are being subsidized by other 
ratepayers.
    We do not object to the Federal Government providing flood 
insurance under reasonable conditions. But because federal 
flood insurance is a privilege, not an entitlement, it is 
reasonable for the Federal Government to limit the underwriting 
of new high risk policies. A reasonable restriction, embodied 
in CBRA, is that the government will not issue new flood 
insurance policies for high risk coastal areas with sparse 
development. Those who own insurable structures that were in 
place on property when it was included in the System are 
eligible for flood insurance. Also, whether fiscally prudent or 
not, new federal flood insurance continues to be available in 
more heavily developed areas that are not included in the 
System.
    Some claim that they were unaware that their property was 
being included in the System, and therefore did not secure 
federal flood insurance before the effective date of the 
prohibition. At the Resources Committee markup of H.R. 2100, 
Rep. Wayne Gilchrest offered an amendment that would have 
allowed the owners of structures that were there when the land 
was included in the System to secure flood insurance. Because 
of unresolvable questions about the adequacy of notice, this 
proposal gives property owners the benefit of the doubt and 
provides reasonable relief without encouraging and rewarding 
subsequent development on Coastal Barrier units. Unfortunately, 
rather than debate this proposal on its merits, the Majority 
chose to rule it out of order on a technicality. We are 
confident that the amendment can be appropriately redrafted and 
we look forward to debating the merits of this approach on the 
Floor of the House.
    In summary, H.R. 2100 undermines the highly successful 
Coastal Barrier Resources Act by providing special treatment 
for a few individuals. Not only is this bad fiscal policy in a 
time of austerity, but it opens a Pandora's box by establishing 
a precedent for exceptions. At a time when Americans from all 
walks of life are being asked to make sacrifices to help 
balance the federal budget, is it too much to ask that wealthy 
developers and the owners of expensive oceanfront property 
continue to forego subsidies that are already denied them by 
law? We think not.

                                   George Miller.
                                   Bruce F. Vento.
                                   Dale E. Kildee.
                                   Gerry E. Studds.
                                   Frank Pallone, Jr.