[House Report 108-359]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    108-359

======================================================================
 
   REPLACEMENT OF JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM MAP

                                _______
                                

 November 17, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Pombo, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 154]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 154) to exclude certain properties from the John H. 
Chafee 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 all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES 
                    SYSTEM MAP.

  (a) In General.--The map described in subsection (b) is replaced by 
the map entitled ``John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System 
Matagorda Peninsula Unit T07/T07P'' and dated July 12, 2002.
  (b) Description of Replaced Map.--The map referred to in subsection 
(a) is the map relating to the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier System 
unit designated as Coastal Barrier Resources System Matagorda Peninsula 
Unit T07/T07P that is subtitled ``T07/T07P'' and included in the set of 
maps entitled ``Coastal Barrier Resources System'' and referred to in 
section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)).
  (c) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall keep the 
replacement map referred to in subsection (a) on file and available for 
inspection in accordance with section 4(b) of the Coastal Barrier 
Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)).

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 154 is to exclude certain properties 
from the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    Coastal barriers are natural landscape features that 
protect the mainland, lagoons, wetlands and salt marshes from 
the full force of wind, wave and tidal energy. Major types of 
coastal barriers include fringing mangroves, tombolos, barrier 
islands, barrier spits, and bay barriers. Composed of sand and 
other loose sediments, these elongated, narrow land forms are 
dynamic ecosystems and prone to frequent disruption by storms. 
Coastal barrier systems provide habitat for a variety of 
wildlife, and are an important recreational resource. Despite 
their vulnerability to hurricane damage and shoreline 
recession, these areas are attractive places to locate private 
homes and resorts.
    The Coastal Barrier Resources System was established by the 
Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 (CBRA, Public Law 97-348) 
and was expanded by the CBRA amendments adopted in the Coastal 
Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-591). CBRA is 
designed to eliminate or limit federal development incentives 
on undeveloped coastal barriers to prevent the loss of human 
life and property from storms, minimize federal expenditures 
and protect habitat for fish and wildlife.
    This System is unique because it protects coastal barriers 
without restricting the use of private property. Inclusion of 
property in the System does not prevent private development nor 
does it prevent actions to process and issue federal permits 
necessary for development. However, the CBRA does restrict the 
availability of new federal financial assistance to develop 
property within the System. Of particular importance, no new 
federal flood insurance can be issued for properties located in 
System units, but existing flood insurance policies for 
property currently within the System remain in place. However, 
if the property is damaged, it cannot be rebuilt with federal 
flood insurance if the cost of rebuilding is more than 50 
percent of the value of the property. Also, if an insured 
property within the System is substantially expanded or 
replaced with more development, flood insurance coverage is 
lost. Other forms of federal assistance that are restricted for 
property within the Coastal Barrier System include disaster 
relief, community block grants, flood control, construction of 
new federal highways, construction of new infrastructure and 
beach stabilization or erosion projects.
    CBRA System units are delineated on maps referenced in law 
and maintained by the Department of the Interior's U. S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service. These units encompass areas that were 
undeveloped (defined as having low densities of structures per 
acre and negligible infrastructure) when the units were made 
part of the System. In 1990, otherwise protected areas (OPAs) 
were also included in the System. OPAs are public or private 
lands already held for conservation purposes, such as wildlife 
refuges or parks. Like system units, OPAs also are delineated 
on maps referenced in law. Therefore, any change to the 
boundary of an OPA requires Congressional action.
    OPAs are based on maps prepared by the Department of the 
Interior and included in a report to Congress that formed the 
basis for the 1990 additions to the System. That report stated 
that OPAs shown on the maps were in fact areas held for 
conservation purposes. Unfortunately, boundaries drawn for some 
OPAs have been shown to be poor renditions of the actual 
boundaries of the underlying conservation areas. Once included 
in the System, property included in OPAs become subject to the 
same flood insurance restrictions as those in System units. 
Consequently, any owners of developed property incorrectly 
labeled as property held for conservation purposes lose their 
eligibility for federal flood insurance.
    Since 1990, Congress has corrected inaccurate boundaries 
for OPAs in New York, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, 
Florida and Alabama. Most recently these modifications have 
been conducted using digital mapping technology, substantially 
increasing the reliability of the data.
    This legislation would revise the boundaries of the 
Matagorda Peninsula Unit (T07) in Texas to remove the 19-acre 
Matagorda Dunes Homesites subdivision. This new map would more 
accurately reflect the intent of the original 1982 CBRA. 
According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, the subdivision 
should not have been included in T-07 because it contained a 
full complement of infrastructure including roads, potable 
water, wastewater and electricity prior to designation. In 
fact, the subdivision exceeded the infrastructure criteria used 
to determine what is a ``undeveloped coastal barrier'' within 
the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System. Until 
recently, these private property owners had both State wind 
storm insurance and federal flood insurance which have now been 
cancelled. The fundamental goal of this measure is to correct 
this mistake and to accurately redraw the boundaries of the 
unit.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 154 was introduced on January 7, 2003, by Congressman 
Ron Paul (R-TX). The bill was referred to the Committee on 
Resources and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on 
Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. On September 25, 
2003, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On October 
29, 2003, the Full Resources Committee met to consider the 
bill. The Subcommittee was discharged from further 
consideration of the bill by unanimous consent. Chairman 
Richard Pombo (R-CA) offered an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute that replaced generic language with a specific 
reference to a July 12, 2002, replacement coastal barrier 
resource map and language ensuring that the new map will be on 
file and available for inspection at the Department of the 
Interior. The amendment was adopted by unanimous consent. The 
bill, as amended, was then ordered favorably reported to the 
House of Representatives by unanimous consent.

            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations 
are reflected in the body of this report.

                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

    Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

    1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) 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 this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) 
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when 
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted 
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
    2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) 
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this 
bill does not contain any new budget authority, credit 
authority, or an increase or decrease in tax expenditures. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), enactment 
of this bill could increase federal revenues by less than 
$100,000 annually, but these collection would be partially 
offset each year by new mandatory spending. CBO concludes that 
``H.R. 154 would not have any significant impact on the federal 
budget. The bill could affect direct spending, but we expect 
that net changes would be negligible.''
    3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. This bill does 
not authorize funding and therefore, clause 3(c)(4) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives does not 
apply.
    4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause 
3(c)(3) of rule XIII 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 this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                 Washington, DC, November 10, 2003.
Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 154, a bill to 
exclude certain properties from the John H. Chafee Coastal 
Barrier Resources System.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.
            Sincerely,
                                       Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 154--A bill to exclude certain properties from the John H. Chafee 
        Coastal Barrier Resources System

    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 154 would not have any 
significant impact on the federal budget. The bill could affect 
direct spending, but we expect that net changes would be 
negligible.
    H.R. 154 would modify the boundaries of the Matagorda 
Peninsula Unit (in Texas) of the Coastal Barrier Resources 
System to exclude about 45 lots or houses on 19 acres of 
private land. This change would enable the owners of these 
properties to obtain federal flood insurance. CBO estimates 
that, once insurance policies have been written on all 
properties, premium collections into the national flood 
insurance fund would increase by less than $100,000 annually. 
Collections would be partially offset each year by new 
mandatory spending for underwriting and administrative 
expenses. The federal government may also incur additional 
costs for losses associated with any future floods that might 
affect the newly insured properties, but CBO has no basis for 
predicting such events.
    The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    On October 23, 2003, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 
1066, a bill to correct a technical error from Unit T-07 of the 
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System, as ordered 
reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public 
Works on October 15, 2003. The provisions of S. 1066 and H.R. 
154 are identical, as are the estimated costs.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Deborah Reis. 
This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

    This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or 
tribal law.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing 
law.

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

     While I supported the passage of H.R. 154 by Unanimous 
Consent in the House Committee on Resources, I remain concerned 
about legislative erosion of the Coastal Barrier Resources 
System.
     Coastal barriers are natural landscape features that 
protect the mainland, lagoons, wetlands and salt marshes from 
the full force of wind, wave and tidal energy. Composed of sand 
and other loose sediments, these elongated, narrow land forms 
are dynamic ecosystems and prone to frequent disruption by 
storms. Despite their vulnerability to hurricane damage, these 
areas are attractive places to locate private homes and 
resorts. However, the force of nature on these systems 
frequently exceeds these human endeavors. Storms destroy these 
properties, jeopardize safety of the public and emergency 
response personnel, and put taxpayers at risk. Construction in 
these fragile ecosystems damages wildlife habitat and can be 
the cause of further erosion.
     The Coastal Barrier Resources System is designed to limit 
federal development incentives on undeveloped coastal barriers, 
to prevent the loss of human life and property from storms, 
minimize federal expenditures and protect habitat for fish and 
wildlife. Since its expansion in 1990, however, numerous 
petitions have been made to Congress to adjust the system 
boundaries or to exclude coastal properties from the system. 
The intent of Congress in creating this system is to distance 
the federal government from providing any incentive for such 
development.
     H.R. 154 addresses a unique situation in which improvement 
in mapping technology revealed an erroneous inclusion of a 45-
home community in the system more than 20 years ago. This is an 
appropriate situation for congressional consideration. However, 
annual requests for congressional intervention in the 
boundaries of the system indicate a need to comprehensively 
review this system, to identify and resolve inconsistencies, 
and to provide guidelines under which future reviews and 
appeals may occur.

                                                Wayne T. Gilchrest.

                                
