[House Report 116-405]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
116th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 116-405
======================================================================
TO AMEND THE NUTRIA ERADICATION AND CONTROL ACT OF 2003 TO INCLUDE
CALIFORNIA IN THE PROGRAM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
_______
February 25, 2020.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Grijalva, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 3399]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 3399) to amend the Nutria Eradication and
Control Act of 2003 to include California in the program, and
for other purposes, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the
bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. NUTRIA ERADICATION.
The Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-16) is
amended--
(1) in section 2--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Wetlands
and tidal marshes of the Chesapeake Bay and in
Louisiana'' and inserting ``Wetlands, tidal
marshes, and agricultural lands'';
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``in
Maryland and Louisiana''; and
(iii) by amending paragraph (3) to read as
follows:
``(3) Traditional harvest methods to control or eradicate
nutria have failed. Consequently, marsh loss, loss of public
and private wetlands, and loss of agricultural lands are
accelerating.''; and
(B) in subsection (b), by striking ``the State of
Maryland and the State of Louisiana'' and inserting
``any State that has demonstrated the need''; and
(2) in section 3--
(A) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
``(a) Grant Authority.--The Secretary of the Interior (referred to in
this Act as the `Secretary'), may provide financial assistance to a
State, in an amount that is in proportion to the total impacted area of
such State affected by nutria, that has demonstrated to the Secretary
sufficient need for a program to implement measures to eradicate or
control nutria and restore marshland, public and private wetlands, and
agricultural lands damaged by nutria.'';
(B) by striking subsection (b);
(C) in subsection (d)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the
program may'' and inserting ``a State program
referred to in subsection (a) may''; and
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the
program may'' and inserting ``a State program
referred to in subsection (a) may'';
(D) in subsection (e), by inserting ``to a State''
after ``provided'';
(E) in subsection (f), by striking ``$4,000,000'' and
all that follows and inserting ``$12,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2021 through 2025.''; and
(F) by redesignating subsections (c) through (f) as
subsections (b) through (e).
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of H.R. 3399 is to amend the Nutria Eradication
and Control Act of 2003 to include all affected states in the
program, and for other purposes.
Background and Need for Legislation
Nutria (Myocastor coypus) are an invasive wetland species
that have been found in coastal areas of the Gulf of Mexico,
East Coast, West Coast, and other wetland areas scattered
throughout the United States. These large, aquatic rodents were
initially introduced into the United States in 1899 for fur
production,\1\ and they began establishing populations in the
1930s.\2\ Nutria breed rapidly and have destructive tendencies
that can lead to breached levees, extensive erosion, damage to
native vegetation and agricultural crops, displacement of
indigenous species, and disease and parasite introduction,
threatening humans, livestock, and pets.\3\ Nutria's burrowing
and consumption habits pose a severe threat to wetlands
throughout the United States, which are essential habitat for
waterfowl and other wildlife and act as ``buffers'' from
extreme weather events.\4\ Since European settlement, wetlands
in the United States have declined to less than half of their
original extent.\5\ Had measures not been adopted to control
and eradicate nutria in the Chesapeake Bay, nutria could have
destroyed 17 percent of the Bay's marshes in a fifty-year
period, according to estimates.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Susan Jojola, Gary W. Witmer & Dale Nolte, USDA Animal & Plant
Health Inspection Serv.--Wildlife Servs., Nutria: An Invasive Rodent
Pest or Valued Resource?, Proc. 11th WildlifeDamageMgmt. Conf. 110
(2005), https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_wdmconfproc/110/.
\2\Nutria, USDA Nat'l Invasive Species Info. Ctr., https://
www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/profile/nutria (last accessed Feb. 24,
2020) (citing Jojola et al., supra note 1).
\3\California's Invaders: Nutria, Cal. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife,
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Invasives/Species/Nutria (last
accessed Feb. 24, 2020).
\4\See, e.g., U.S. EPA, Off. of Wetlands, Oceans & Watersheds, Off.
of Res. & Dev., EPA-843-R-15-005, National Wetland Condition Assessment
2011 (2016), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/
documents/nwca_2011_public_report_20160510.pdf.
\5\Id. at 4.
\6\Rob Southwick & Pat Foster-Turley, Ph.D., Southwick Assocs.,
Inc., Potential Economic Losses Associated with Uncontrolled Nutria
Populations in Maryland's Portion of the Chesapeake Bay (2004), https:/
/www.fws.gov/chesapeakenutriaproject/pdfs/Southwick_Economic_rpt.pdf
(prepared for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2003, the Nutria Eradication and Control Act\7\
authorized the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial
assistance to Maryland and Louisiana for a program to eradicate
or control nutria and restore marshland damaged by nutria.\8\
H.R. 3399, as reported, amends the Nutria Eradication and
Control Act to include any affected state,\9\ including
California, which now has an expanding breeding population of
nutria in the San Joaquin Valley and adjacent areas.\10\ In
addition, the bill, as reported, includes language to adjust
the grant authority to be in proportion to the total impacted
area affected by nutria infestation and to authorize $12
million in appropriations for each of fiscal years 2021 through
2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Pub. L. No. 108-16, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-
108publ16/pdf/PLAW-108publ16.pdf, 117 Stat. 621 (2003), https://
uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=117& page=621.
\8\Id. at Sec. 3(a).
\9\H.R. 3399, as introduced, expanded the Nutria Eradication and
Control Act of 2003 only to include California. At markup, the
Committee on Natural Resources adopted an amendment in the nature of a
substitute to expand the program to any state with a nutria infestation
and a demonstrated need for assistance.
\10\Discovery of Invasive Nutria in California, Cal. Dep't of Fish
& Wildlife, https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Invasives/Species/
Nutria/Infestation (last accessed Feb. 24, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Action
H.R. 3399 was introduced on June 21, 2019, by
Representative Josh Harder (D-CA). The bill was referred solely
to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee
to the Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife. On
September 24, 2019, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the
bill. On January 29, 2020, the Natural Resources Committee met
to consider the bill. The Subcommittee was discharged by
unanimous consent. Chair Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ) offered an
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment in the
nature of a substitute was agreed to by unanimous consent. The
bill, as amended, was adopted and ordered favorably reported to
the House of Representatives by unanimous consent.
Hearings
For the purposes of section 103(i) of H. Res. 6 of the
116th Congress--the following hearing was used to develop or
consider H.R. 3399: legislative hearing by the Subcommittee on
Water, Oceans, and Wildlife held on September 24, 2019.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Nutria eradication
Paragraph 1 of this section amends the Nutria Eradication
and Control Act of 2003 to expand the program to allow all
affected states to qualify for the grant program, rather than
just Maryland and Louisiana. Under this provision, the
Secretary of Interior may provide financial assistance to a
state--in an amount that is in proportion to the state's total
impacted area affected by nutria--to help eradicate or control
nutria and restore marshlands, wetlands, and agricultural lands
damaged by nutria.
Paragraph 2 of this section authorizes the appropriation of
$12 million for each of fiscal years 2021 through 2025.
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 Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
Compliance With House Rule XIII and Congressional
Budget Act
1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act.
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, February 21, 2020.
Hon. Raul M. Grijalva,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3399, a bill to
amend the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003 to include
California in the program, and for other purposes.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Janani
Shankaran.
Sincerely,
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 3399 would authorize the annual appropriation of $12
million over the 2021-2025 period for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to provide financial assistance to states to
eradicate nutria, an invasive rodent species, and to restore
wetlands damaged by nutria. In 2020, the agency allocated $4
million for that purpose.
Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, and based
on historical spending patterns for similar activities, CBO
estimates that implementing H.R. 3399 would cost $52 million
over the 2020-2025 period. The costs of the bill, detailed in
Table 1, fall within budget function 300 (natural resources and
environment).
TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION UNDER H.R. 3399
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, millions of dollars
----------------------------------------------------
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2020-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorization.............................................. 0 12 12 12 12 12 60
Estimated Outlays.......................................... 0 7 10 11 12 12 52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Janani
Shankaran. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss,
Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goals and
objectives of this bill are to amend the Nutria Eradication and
Control Act of 2003 to include all affected states in the
program.
Earmark Statement
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
Existing Programs
This bill does not establish or reauthorize a program of
the federal government known to be duplicative of another
program. Such program was not included in any report from the
Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to
section 21 of Public Law 111-139 or identified in the most
recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance published
pursuant to 31 U.S.C. Sec. 6104 as relating to other programs.
Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law
Any preemptive effect of this bill over state, local, or
tribal law is intended to be consistent with the bill's
purposes and text and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the
U.S. Constitution.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
NUTRIA ERADICATION AND CONTROL ACT OF 2003
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) [Wetlands and tidal marshes of the Chesapeake Bay
and in Louisiana] Wetlands, tidal marshes, and
agricultural lands provide significant cultural,
economic, and ecological benefits to the Nation.
(2) The South American nutria (Myocastor coypus) is
directly contributing to substantial marsh loss [in
Maryland and Louisiana] on Federal, State, and private
land.
[(3) Traditional harvest methods to control or
eradicate nutria have failed in Maryland and have had
limited success in the eradication of nutria in
Louisiana. Consequently, marsh loss is accelerating.]
(3) Traditional harvest methods to control or
eradicate nutria have failed. Consequently, marsh loss,
loss of public and private wetlands, and loss of
agricultural lands are accelerating.
(4) The nutria eradication and control pilot program
authorized by Public Law 105-322 is to develop new and
effective methods for eradication of nutria.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance to
[the State of Maryland and the State of Louisiana] any State
that has demonstrated the need for a program to implement
measures to eradicate or control nutria and restore marshland
damaged by nutria.
SEC. 3. NUTRIA ERADICATION PROGRAM.
[(a) Grant Authority.--The Secretary of the Interior (in this
Act referred to as the ``Secretary''), subject to the
availability of appropriations, may provide financial
assistance to the State of Maryland and the State of Louisiana
for a program to implement measures to eradicate or control
nutria and restore marshland damaged by nutria.]
(a) Grant Authority.--The Secretary of the Interior (referred
to in this Act as the ``Secretary''), may provide financial
assistance to a State, in an amount that is in proportion to
the total impacted area of such State affected by nutria, that
has demonstrated to the Secretary sufficient need for a program
to implement measures to eradicate or control nutria and
restore marshland, public and private wetlands, and
agricultural lands damaged by nutria.
[(b) Goals.--The goals of the program shall be to--
[(1) eradicate nutria in Maryland;
[(2) eradicate or control nutria in Louisiana and
other States; and
[(3) restore marshland damaged by nutria.]
[(c)] (b) Activities.--In the State of Maryland, the
Secretary shall require that the program consist of management,
research, and public education activities carried out in
accordance with the document published by the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service entitled ``Eradication Strategies for
Nutria in the Chesapeake and Delaware Bay Watersheds'', dated
March 2002.
[(d)] (c) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the costs of
[the program may] a State program referred to in
subsection (a) may not exceed 75 percent of the total
costs of the program.
(2) In-kind contributions.--The non-Federal share of
the costs of [the program may] a State program referred
to in subsection (a) may be provided in the form of in-
kind contributions of materials or services.
[(e)] (d) Limitation on Administrative Expenses.--Not more
than 5 percent of financial assistance provided to a State by
the Secretary under this section may be used for administrative
expenses.
[(f)] (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--For financial
assistance under this section, there is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary [$4,000,000 for the State of
Maryland program and $2,000,000 for the State of Louisiana
program for each of fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and
2008.] $12,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2021 through 2025.
* * * * * * *
Supplemental, Minority, Additional, or Dissenting Views
None.