House Report 104-452 - CORRECTIONS TO COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM MAPS

[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.

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.