Contents
page
Chapter 2
Water, Coastal & Marine
Resources
Perhaps the one area where the 106th Congress made the most
progress is in the long neglected area of protecting our oceans and
coasts. In its closing days, the 106th Congress was able to pass a
number of smaller ocean and coastal bills, including a comprehensive
beach monitoring and notification bill, and a coral protection bill.
Sen. Ernest Hollings' (D-S.C.) Oceans Act, establishing an ocean
commission to help develop national ocean policy, passed easily, as
did the late Sen. John Chafee's (R-R.I.) estuary restoration
bill.
There were also some disappointments. On several occasions, the
Senate passed a coastal management bill with dedicated funding for
polluted runoff, but House Resources Committee Chairman Don Young
(R-Alaska) and House Transportation Committee Chairman Bud Shuster
(R-Pa.) blocked this important bipartisan legislation sponsored by
Rep. Jim Saxton (R-N.J.) in the House. There were other low points,
as congressional leaders allowed the Alaska delegation and Sen. Mary
Landrieu (D-La.) to give $150 million each year from federal
offshore oil and gas drilling revenues to seven states, without
environmental protections. As a result, this money, which is
designed for coastal and water related conservation projects, may
well end up being used by the states for projects such as roads,
beach construction, jetties and bulkheads that cause more damage to
the environment rather than mitigate it. Opponents also mounted
attacks on the Clean Water Act and the new water quality regulation
issued by the EPA for the total maximum daily load program,
successfully blocking implementation of the new rule for one year.
Finally, in the fiscal year 2001 final omnibus spending bill,
Congress passed a bill that is intended to address the severe
problems with combined sewer and sanitary sewer overflows, but it
fails to strengthen clean water protections.
COASTS, OCEANS, AND MARINE SPECIES - STEPS FORWARD
"Beaches Environmental Awareness, Cleanup, and Health Act of
1999"
S. 522, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.); H.R.
950, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.); H.R. 999, Rep. Brian Bilbray
(R-Calif.)
Status: Enacted on 10/10/2000 (Pub. L. No.
106-284)
NRDC releases an annual beach report that documents
the locations of, and reasons for, beach closures nationwide. Each
year, statistics show that beaches are closed due to unhealthy
levels of pathogens and other pollutants. The Beaches Environmental
Awareness, Cleanup, and Health Act of 1999, known as the BEACH bill,
will help reduce the number of beach closures, authorize funding for
states both to establish uniform testing and monitoring procedures
for coastal waters, and ensure notification of the public when beach
waters are contaminated. Under the BEACH bill, the EPA is charged
with developing indicators for detecting pathogens, as well as
publishing performance criteria by which beaches can be monitored.
Grants are then provided to state governments to develop individual
state monitoring programs. This system provides flexibility to
coastal states to develop their own monitoring programs based on
federal standards. This authorizes $150 million over 5 years ($30
million per year) to establish and implement monitoring
programs.
The House bill, H.R. 999, was approved by the House on April 22,
1999 after Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) improved the bill on the
floor by ensuring that, among other things, state criteria for
pathogens or pathogen indicators for coastal recreation waters is as
protective of human health as EPA's federal criteria. The Senate
bill (S. 522), introduced by Sen. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), unanimously
passed on September 21, 2000. The House approved the Senate version
on September 26, 2000, and President Clinton signed the bill on
October 10, 2000.
"Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1999"
S. 835, the late Sen. John Chafee (R-R.I); H.R. 1775,
Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.)
Status: Enacted on
11/7/00 (Pub. L. No. 106-457)
Both the Senate and the House
passed an estuary restoration bill, S. 835 and H.R. 1775
respectively, that will fund local estuary restoration projects and
require a national strategy for estuary restoration and
preservation. The final bill, which passed the House and Senate at
the end of the session, will restore one million acres of estuary
habitat in the next decade and provide $275 million in grants to
local groups for coastal conservation. The bill also reauthorizes
$40 million in EPA funding over the next five years for the
Chesapeake Bay Program, which for the first time will provide money
for estuary management. The bill also authorizes $40 million for
Long Island Sound restoration and $50 million for the Clean Lakes
Program, both over the next five years.
"Shark Finning Prohibition Act"
H.R. 3535, H.R.
5461, Rep. Randy Cunningham (R-Calif.); S. 2831, Sen. John Kerry
(D-Mass.)
Status: H.R. 5461 enacted on 12/21/00 (Pub.
L. No. 106-557); S. 2831 referred to the Senate Commerce
Committee
An Asian delicacy known as "shark fin soup" can
cost $100 a bowl, fueling the practice of shark finning by fishermen
in the central and western Pacific Ocean. In 1991, the percentage of
sharks caught for finning was approximately 3 percent; by 1998, it
had grown to 60 percent. After a shark's fin has been cut off, the
animal is discarded into the ocean where it dies helplessly.
Unregulated shark finning results in a poorly managed shark
population. Most shark species grow slowly, experience late
maturation, and produce small litters.
Sen. John Kerry introduced a bill (S. 2831) that would have
prohibited shark finning in the U.S., mandated fishing restrictions,
banned importation of improperly caught shark, and initiated efforts
to ban shark finning internationally. Sen. Kerry's bill was referred
to the Senate Commerce Committee, amended, incorporated in a larger
coastal package and passed the Senate.
The House bill, H.R. 5461, prohibits the removal of fins of a
shark, including the tail, and the discard of the carcass into the
sea. While Rep. Cunningham's bill does not prohibit the subsequent
sale of shark fins, it does discourage the waste of the other
valuable components of sharks by mandating that no fin may be landed
without its corresponding carcass.
H.R. 5461 passed overwhelmingly in the House by a vote of 390-1
on June 6, 2000. H.R. 5461, a later version of H.R. 3535, passed by
unanimous consent in the Senate on December 7, 2000, and was signed
by President Clinton on December 21, 2000. While environmentalists
believe that H.R. 5461 is an effective first step, it does not go
far enough in encouraging sensible shark management. More
information is needed on the status of different shark populations.
Funding should be directed to the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) for more shark research, and a fishery management plan should
be established.
"Sanctuaries and Reserves Act" and "National Marine
Sanctuaries Amendments Act"
HR 1243, Rep. Jim Saxton
(R-N.J.); S. 1482, Sen. Olympia Snowe
(R-Maine)
Status: Enacted on 11/13/2000 (Pub. L. No:
106-513)
Both H.R. 1243 and S. 1482 amend and reauthorize the
Natural Marine Sanctuaries Program, which was established in 1972 to
preserve the nation's valuable marine resources. Since then 12 areas
covering a wide range of marine habitats have been designated as
national marine sanctuaries, half of which occurred in the last
decade. While a number of new marine sanctuaries have been
established in recent years, funding has not kept pace with the
expansion of the sanctuary system. As a result, the sanctuaries have
failed to enforce adequately and manage these areas to provide full
resource protection. In fact, the extent of the natural resources
within each sanctuary are not known. At the very end of the session,
the House passed the Senate bill. This bill, passed by the Senate on
October 17, 2000, was signed by the president on November 13,
2000.
While the marine sanctuary bill hinders the establishment of new
sanctuaries, it also authorizes significant new increases in funding
for the program, from $32 million in fiscal 2001 up to $40 million
in fiscal 2005. This funding should be forthcoming because the
sanctuary program's funding cannot be used for any other purposes
under an agreement in the omnibus funding bill to provide hundreds
of millions of dollars to certain coastal and ocean programs. This
bill also gave the president the authority to designate a coral reef
ecosystem reserve in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands. The president
did exercise this authority, when on December 4, 2000 he signed an
executive order creating the reserve and putting far-reaching
protections into place for the most ecologically significant coral
reefs in the United States.
Coral Reef Restoration Bills
"Coral Reef
Conservation and Restoration Partnership Act of 2000,"
H.R. 3919, Rep. Jim Saxton, (R-N.J.); "Coral Reef
Protection Act of 1999," HR 3133, Rep. Eni Faleomavaega
(D-AS); "Coral Stewardship Act," S. 2223, Sen.
John Kerry (D-Mass.); "Coral Reef Resource Conservation
and Management Act of 1999," S. 1888, Sen. Daniel Akaka
(D-Hawaii); "Coral Reef Protection Act of
1999," S. 1253, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii);
"Coral Reef Conservation Act of 1999," S. 725, Sen.
Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)
Status: Enacted on 12/23/00 as
part of H.R. 1653 (Pub. L. No. 106-562)
The 106th Congress
saw the introduction of a plethora of bills in both chambers on the
restoration and conservation of the nation's coral reefs and reef
ecosystems. While most of these bills did not advance, at the tail
end of the legislative session, Sens. Snowe, Inouye, and Kerry, and
Reps. Saxton and Faleomavaega worked together and developed a bill
that passed as part of H.R. 1653, an unrelated fishing bill. This
coral bill provides $8 million in grants for coral conservation and
$8 million per year for 4 years for a national coral management
program that includes mapping, assessment and monitoring of corals;
increasing education; removing gears and debris from reefs; and
improving cooperative management between local, regional, and
international parties.
"Coastal Zone Management Act of 2000,"and "Coastal Community
Conservation Act of 1999"
S. 1534, Sens. Olympia Snowe
(R-Maine), John McCain (R-Ariz.); H. R. 2669, Rep. Jim Saxton
(R-N.J)
Status: S. 1534 passed the Senate; H.R. 2669
approved by the House Resources Committee
Although the
Senate passed a bill reauthorizing a popular grant program for state
coastal management on several separate occasions, House Resources
Committee Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska) and House Transportation
Committee Chairman Bud Shuster (R-Pa.) conspired to block the bill
in the House. These two representatives blocked a bipartisan, widely
supported bill, because of their feelings about the $10 million
coastal nonpoint program. To environmentalists, this nonpoint or
polluted runoff program is the most significant piece of the coastal
program.
Created in 1972, the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) allows
for states to develop management plans for competing uses of their
coastal areas. When CZMA authorization expired this year,
environmentalists supported reauthorization legislation primarily
because it contained dedicated funding for polluted runoff, the
single biggest threat to water quality and the health of coastal and
ocean ecosystems and natural resources. Nonpoint source pollution
has resulted in many offshore environmental problems. For instance,
the number of shellfish beds that have been closed for harvesting
due to coastal pollution increased 40 percent between 1966 and 1990.
A 'dead zone' now extends for 7000 square miles from the Mississippi
delta into the Gulf of Mexico. Pfiesteria microbe outbreaks that
cause lesions and death in fish, and neurological disorders in
humans, have been linked to nonpoint sources. To deal with these
types of problems, in 1990 Congress directed the States to develop
nonpoint pollution control plans. Many of these plans are beginning
to be implemented now with $22 million in federal funds to help
address state concerns.
While Sen. Snowe's and Kerry's bill retained the dedicated
nonpoint pollution funding, the House bill that originally contained
this important funding was decimated in the full resources committee
by Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) who attached a controversial
takings provision (discussed in the takings section below) and by
Rep. James Hansen (R-Utah) who removed the polluted runoff funding.
These controversial changes stopped the House bill in its tracks,
because the bill's supporters refused to advance with these changes,
and Chairman Young refused to move the bill without the changes.
"Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act"
S. 2832, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and S. 2973,
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.); H.R. 4046, Rep. Wayne Gilchrest
(R-Md.)
Status: S. 2832, S. 29763 referred to the
Senate Commerce Committee; H.R. 4046 referred to the House Resources
Committee
Congress took no action on any of the three
significant bills introduced this Congress (H.R. 4046, S. 2973 and
S. 2832) reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. In 1996, when Magnuson was last reauthorized, a
number of major changes were made to try to address conservation
issues. One of these changes, involving a moratorium on individual
fishing quotas (IFQs), continues to be controversial, with debate
over whether IFQs should be allowed with some restrictions or if the
current moratorium should stand.
Introduced by Rep. Gilchrest on March 21, 2000, H.R. 4046 is
supported by many members of the environmental community because it
would add new language to Magnuson to reduce bycatch, strengthen
fisheries' observer and rebuilding plans, and require the use of the
precautionary principle where fisheries are declining. While there
was talk that the chair and ranking minority member of the Oceans
& Fisheries Subcommittee, Sens. Snowe and Kerry respectively,
would produce a joint bill, in the end the two senators introduced
separate bills. The Snowe bill (S. 2832) contains a few ill-advised
provisions that would restrict the use of science in fisheries
management and observer programs. The Kerry bill (S. 2973), favored
by the environmental community, incorporates some of the
recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences panel on
ecosystem management and also contains language similar to that in
the House bill on strengthening essential fish habitat and bycatch
reduction.
COASTS, OCEANS, AND MARINE SPECIES - STEPS BACK
"Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2000" (CARA)
H.R. 701, Reps. Don Young (R-Alaska), George Miller
(D-Calif.); S. 25, Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Frank Murkowski
(R-Alaska)
Status: Funding included in H.R. 4578, the
FY 2001 Interior Appropriations bill (Pub. L. No. 106-291); Damaging
coastal impact provisions attached as a rider to H.R. 4942, the FY
2001 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill (Pub. L. No.
106-553)
While an historic partnership between House
Resources Chairman Young and Ranking Member Miller gave birth to a
landmark bill to authorize close to $3 billion each year for 15
years for land and water conservation purposes, this bill contained
provisions that could have significant negative effects on important
ocean and coastal resources. The bill's conservation funds come from
federal royalties from offshore oil and gas leases, and
unfortunately the bill provides incentives for oil development off
the ecologically sensitive and significant Alaskan coast, even
though Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) heroically amended it on the
floor to improve the provision that creates the greatest incentives
for increased oil and gas drilling. Moreover, hundreds of millions
of dollars in federal funds may be used by states to build
environmentally damaging projects such as roads, jetties, ports, or
bulkheads. For this reason, federal oversight over the use these
federal funds by state and local governments should be
strengthened.
The House approved H.R. 701 by a landslide vote of 315-102 on May
11, 2000. Although a number of Senate bills surfaced in 1999 and
2000, including a bill introduced by Sen. Bingaman (S. 2181),
favored by the environmental community because it ensured that these
CARA funds do not encourage more offshore drilling and cannot be
used for activities which would damage coastal areas, only one
version made it out of the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee. This bill ultimately stalled on the Senate floor. Strong
opposition from Western senators against federal land acquisition
and from the appropriations committee members who fear losing
control over these funds blocked further movement in the Senate.
Because of the Senate stalemate on CARA, the president worked out
an agreement through the regular appropriations process with both
House and Senate appropriators to fund most of the same programs for
6 years starting at over $1 billion per year, and increasing to over
$2 billion. Any funds that are not appropriated for land and water
conservation cannot be used for other purposes and must be rolled
over into the next year. Moreover, this deal does not contain any
incentives to drill the Arctic. While the appropriations language
for the land projects was satisfactory, the coastal and ocean
project funding contained language that could allow hundred of
millions of dollars each year to be used for damaging coastal
projects such as roads, jetties, bulkheads, and beach
construction.
"Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Conservation Act of 1999"
S. 1911, Sen. John Breaux
(D-La.)
Status: Approved by the Senate Commerce
Committee
The North Atlantic swordfish stock is over-fished.
In addition, tuna, sailfish, marlin, and sharks have also suffered
decreases in population due to longline fishing techniques. A bill
that attempted to mitigate this situation and rebuild these stocks,
the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Conservation Act of 1999 (S.
1911), however, was seriously flawed. Even though it would create a
conservation area greater than 160,000 square nautical miles in the
Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, it would have improperly
deprived fishery managers of the ability to protect species other
than swordfish in that area by preventing the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) from closing it to protect other species
for four years. Moreover, the area closures in the bill are not as
effective as those recently put into place by NMFS. Fishermen
supported this bill because it authorized a "buy back" program for
commercial fishing permits and boats. Although this bill made it out
of committee, it did not pass the Senate or the House and efforts to
attach it as a legislative rider were defeated.
"CALFED Extension Act of 2000"
H.R. 5130, Rep.
John Doolittle (R-Calif.)
Status: Approved by the
House Resources Committee
Water flowing through the delta of
the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers into the San Francisco Bay is
not only the water supply for California's 20 million people, but
also home to 120 wildlife species, some of them endangered. For
decades, though, water has been increasingly diverted from these
rivers for agricultural and residential uses, resulting in the
collapse of sensitive ecosystems and the devastation of numerous
species. The CALFED Bay-Delta Program was established in 1995,
following the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord between state and federal
agencies, to restore the Bay-Delta ecosystem and develop an
environmentally and economically sustainable water policy. The
original 1996 CALFED authorization, which is now expired, was
supported by a strong, bipartisan coalition from all parts of
California and is making progress. In August of 2000, Interior
Secretary Bruce Babbitt and California Governor Gray Davis
solidified an agreement as a record of decision (ROD) to extend the
CALFED program into the future.
On Capitol Hill, however, legislation was introduced in the House
that would reauthorize the CALFED program but would directly
undermine the ROD without hearings or the full involvement of a
range of stakeholders. This bill, H.R. 5130 introduced by Rep.
Doolittle (R-Calif.), represents an attack on the core principles of
CALFED, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.
Furthermore, the bill would undermine the environmental restoration
efforts of this project by shifting the balance of water allocation
toward powerful agricultural users and away from environmental
needs. Fortunately, this bill never made it to the House floor and
had no Senate counterpart.
Although the 106th Congress missed the opportunity to pass a
clean extension of the expired CALFED program, the FY 2001 Energy
and Water Appropriations bill includes $20 million in unauthorized
funding to continue the program.
Contaminated Sediment Rider
Sponsor: Rep. James
Walsh (R-N.Y.), Rep. John Sweeney (R-N.Y.)
Status:
Enacted on 10/27/00 as part of H.R. 4635, the FY 2001 VA-HUD and
Independent Agencies Appropriations bill (Pub. L. No.
106-377)
In the House EPA funding bill, Rep. Walsh included a
provision that prevents the EPA from dredging up contaminated
sediments on river bottoms during cleanups to protect the health of
those who use the river. There was no Senate counterpart. Dubbed the
"General Electric (GE) relief" rider, GE had highly paid lobbyists
advocating for this rider so that the company could delay paying for
dredging to cleanup the polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) pollution in
the Hudson River. The original version of the rider inserted into
the FY 2001 VA-HUD appropriations bill would delay the EPA from
initiating or ordering the dredging of polluted waterways across the
entire country for the third consecutive year. This year's rider was
considerably worse than prior versions because it "directs," rather
than urges, the EPA to incorporate the results of a yet to be
released National Academy of Science (NAS) report on dredging into
EPA's decision-making process, thus delaying these cleanups and
dictating a decision that should be left to the expertise of the
agency.
An amendment offered by Reps. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), Sherrod
Brown (D-Ohio) and Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) to removed this
"contaminated sediment" rider language from the bill was rejected on
the House floor by a vote of 208-216. Rep. Hinchey, calling the
rider anti-environmental, said, "The intention of [rider] is to make
it impossible for the EPA to proceed with its program to remediate
these bodies of water, I believe, which are in dire need of that
remediation." Unfortunately, in the House, concern for polluters'
profits won out over concern for the people who live and play on
severely contaminated rivers. In conference, however, this House
rider was modified to restrict its application to sites where the
EPA did not have a record of decision. The final effect of the rider
is to delay the cleanup of contaminated sediments at least 6 sites
nationwide until another report is completed.
Salmon Rider
Sponsor: Sen. Slade Gorton
(R-Wash.)
Status: Rejected from the H.R. 4578, the FY
2001 the Interior Appropriations conference committee
Sen.
Gorton shamelessly and unsuccessfully tried to attach a rider
prohibiting federal agencies from studying whether dam removal could
save four species of endangered salmon and steelhead. This rider
would have barred the government from even considering the option -
dam removal - that offers the best chances of success in restoring
wild salmon. Fortunately, the administration refused to accept this
provision in the Interior funding bill.
Up to 15 million wild salmon and steelhead once returned each
year to the Columbia and Snake Rivers. However, largely due to the
construction of hydropower dams, that number has plummeted to only a
few thousand per year. Presently, the migration up river through
these dams proves fatal to 80-95 percent of migrating young salmon
and steelhead. At the same time, these dams produce only 5 percent
of the Northwest's electricity while affordable sources of renewable
energy are available elsewhere. The National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) recently released a plan directing agencies to
undertake a series of actions to rebuild the Snake River salmon
population. This plan also calls for promoting further engineering
and economic studies of dam removal. The Gorton salmon rider
directly contradicted the findings and goals of the NMFS recovery
plan.
Army Corps of Engineers Rider
Status: Removed from
H.R. 4461, the FY 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill in conference
committee
This provision would have blocked any efforts to
reform management and oversight functions of the Army Corps of
Engineers, an agency that manages the nation's rivers and harbors
and oversees wetlands regulatory and restoration programs. The rider
was a reaction to recent efforts by Secretary of the Army Louis
Caldera to reform the Corps internally by reasserting civilian
oversight over the agency. Efforts to reform the Corps emerged after
the Washington Post reported earlier this year that top level Corps
military leadership ordered personnel to manipulate a study to
justify a $50 million seven-year project to expand barge facilities
in the Upper Mississippi River. It also came to light that top
military officials had launched a plan to grow the Corps budget to
$2 billion by aggressively approving new water development projects
without the knowledge of civilian personnel.
Oregon Inlet Rider
Sponsor: Sen. Jesse Helms
(R-N.C.)
Status: Originally included in S. 2536, the
FY 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill; Satisfactorily amended on
the Senate floor
This provision would have removed at least
93 acres from Cape Hatteras National Seashore and 33 acres from Pea
Island National Wildlife Refuge and given it to the Corps of
Engineers to construct two huge jetties into the ocean, one of which
would be two miles long. The project is unnecessary and fiscally
wasteful, costing an estimated $108 million. Periodic dredging
allows fishing to continue in the area for more than thirty years
and costs about the same as just the estimated annual maintenance of
the jetties. This project would accelerate beach erosion along the
national seashore and refuge in the Outer Banks of North Carolina.
Similar jetties built 70 years ago have had a devastating effect on
Assateague National Seashore.
During consideration of the FY 2001 Agriculture Appropriations
bill, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) successfully removed this rider by
voice vote on the Senate floor on July 20, 2000, and replaced it
with an acceptable substitute that stops the land transfer and
requires an evaluation of alternatives to the jetties.
Steller Sea Lion Rider
Sponsor: Senator Ted
Stevens (R-Alaska)
Status: Enacted on 12/21/00 as part
of the FY 2001 Omnibus Appropriations bill (Pub. L. No.
106-554)
Since 1960, the adult Steller sea lion population
has crashed - declining by more than 80 percent. Sea lions in
western Alaska are locked in a life or death battle with the
commercial fishing industry. Pollock, the primary food in the
Steller sea lion's diet, is also a groundfish targeted by the
industrial fishing fleets of Alaska with giant factory ships that
take more than 2 billion pounds of groundfish per year to furnish
McDonald's with its fish sandwiches and Gorton's with its fish
sticks. Sea lions simply cannot compete with these trawlers for
food. As a result, fewer and fewer sea lion pups survive to
adulthood. The National Marine Fisheries Service issued a biological
opinion that the massive pollock fishing industry is jeopardizing
the steller sea lion's critical habitat by decimating its food
source. As a result, NMFS regulations would restrict fishing in the
sea lion's critical habitat.
Flouting the Endangered Species Act, Sen. Stevens attached a
pro-fishing industry, anti-Steller sea lion rider into the FY 2001
Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill, which was included in
an omnibus spending bill at the very end of the Congress. In its
original form, this rider would have overridden the application of
the Endangered Species Act by mandating renewed fishing in this
critical sea lion habitat. The Clinton Administration threatened to
veto the entire omnibus spending package, because this rider would
be endorsing - indeed, encouraging - the extinction of a unique and
magnificent species.
During final negotiations on the omnibus bill, Sen. Stevens and
the Administration agreed to modify this rider so that it no longer
overrides the application of the endangered species act, and
provides economic protections to the fishermen and the fish
processing facilities, however, it makes it more difficult for NMFS
to protect the sea lion. The final version of the rider still delays
implementation of strong new protections for the sea lions until
January 1, 2002.
COASTS, OCEANS, AND MARINE SPECIES - STANDING IN PLACE
"Oceans Act of 2000"
S. 2327, Sen. Ernest
Hollings (D-S.C.); H. R. 4410, Rep. Jim Saxton
(R-N.J.)
Status: Enacted on 8/7/2000 (Pub. Law
106-256)
Sen. Hollings' bill creates a commission on national
ocean policy, which will consider the protection of the marine
environment, prevention of marine pollution, enhancement of maritime
commerce and transportation, response to natural hazards, and ocean
science and research. Unfortunately, in the charge to the
commission, environmental issues are not given precedence over
economic uses of the oceans. The 16-member commission is appointed
by the president and is charged with producing a report for the
president within 18 months. Within 120 days of receiving the report,
the president will publish proposals to implement the Commission's
recommendations. This bill was signed into law by President Clinton
after easily passing the Senate on June 26, 2000 and the House on
July 25, 2000.
CLEAN WATER ACT - STEPS FORWARD
None.
CLEAN WATER ACT - STEPS BACK
While direct attacks were unsuccessful, indirect attacks on the
clean water act and wetlands protections proliferated. While
ultimately these attacks were repelled, members tried to exempt
polluting activities such as mountaintop removal strip mining,
logging, and agriculture from the Clean Water Act's purview.
Mountaintop Removal Mining Rider
H.J. Res. 82,
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.)
Status: Failed to get
included in the FY 2000 omnibus funding bill, but was added, in a
largely symbolic roll call vote of 56-33, to a continuing resolution
(H.J. Res. 82) that was never enacted.
A blatant, broadside
attack on the Clean Water Act spearheaded by the senior West
Virginia senator occurred at the very end of the first session. Sen.
Byrd, angered by a recent federal court case that held West Virginia
mountain top removal mining to be in violation of the Clean Water
Act and environmental requirements of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act, tried to exempt mountaintop removal mining from
federal environmental law.
Sen. Byrd's attempts to attach a legislative provision to an
appropriations bill were ultimately unsuccessful, due largely to
effective, vocal opposition of moderate republicans led by Rep.
Christopher Shays (R-Conn.). Although his legislative efforts
failed, Sen. Byrd ultimately was satisfied by a proposal from the
Clinton Administration to change the definition of "fill" in the
Clean Water Act, allowing mountaintop removal mining to continue
under the more lax eye of the Army Corps of Engineers. Section 404
of the Clean Water Act gives the Army Corps of Engineers the
authority to issue permits for the dumping of "fill material" into
waters of the United States. However, the current definition of
"fill material" specifically excludes waste. The Army Corps and EPA
proposed to eliminate this "waste exclusion" from the definition of
fill material. Environmental organizations oppose this rule change
because eliminating the waste exclusion, the Corps would be
authorized to issue permits for the dumping of waste (including
mining waste from mountaintop removal) into our waters.
Other bills to exempt polluters from Clean Water Act
requirements
H.R. 3625, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.); S.
2041, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Status: Referred
to Environment and Public Works Committee
Other bills were
introduced this Congress that would have exempted entire polluting
industries from some key requirements of the Clean Water Act. For
example, H.R. 3625 sponsored by Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) (with 197
cosponsors), would have exempted the logging industry from
requirements to obtain point source discharge permits. Sen. Blanche
Lincoln (D-Ark.) introduced S. 2041, a similar bill to exempt the
logging industry from Clean Water Act requirements.
"Water Pollution Program Enhancements Act of
2000"
S. 2417, Sen. Crapo
(R-Idaho)
Status: Passed the Senate unanimously;
referred to the House Transportation Committee
As originally
introduced, the Crapo bill attempted broadly to block EPA's new
regulations to control polluted runoff. These rules were issued in
an attempt to provide uniformity, clarity and structure to the Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program, a cornerstone of the original
1972 Clean Water Act. S. 2417 would have prohibited EPA from
finalizing the TMDL rule for at least 18 months until the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) completed a study of the TMDL program. In
addition, the bill contained a section of one-sided findings hostile
to the TMDL program, emphasizing its costs and ignoring potential
benefits and wrongly suggesting that many states were implementing
programs that were "functionally equivalent" to the TMDL
program.
EPA finalized the TMDL rule before S. 2417 was voted out of the
Environment and Public Works Committee, and in response Congress
slipped a rider into the military construction appropriations bill
prohibiting EPA from implementing the new rule during FY 2001.
Before it was approved by the committee, S. 2417 was significantly
amended. The "findings" section was dropped and the requirements for
the NAS study were significantly modified. A second study by the
National Academy of Public Administrators to examine various
programs to reduce discharge from point and nonpoint sources was
also added.
Nonpoint Pollution Controls (TMDL) Rider
Status:
Enacted on 7/13/00 as part of H.R. 4425, the FY 2001 Military
Construction Appropriations bill (Pub. L. No.
106-246)
Despite the fact that over 20,000 individual river
segments, lakes, and estuaries across America are still polluted by
sedimentation, nutrients, and pathogens, this Congress slipped a
provision into the military construction funding bill, blocking the
EPA from implementing a new rule to clean up polluted waters until
October 2001.
In 1972, the drafters of the Clean Water Act created the Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program for cleaning up the nation's
waters where technology controls on sewage plants and factories were
not sufficient to achieve applicable water quality standards. States
and EPA are required to identify rivers, lakes and coastal waters
that are polluted, rank them for priority attention, and then
develop pollution limits or "pollution budget" called a TMDL for
each body of water. The TMDL program has been virtually ignored by
the states and EPA for over 20 years.
Now, after more than 30 citizen lawsuits across the country, EPA
and the states are taking steps to begin implementing this
cornerstone Clean Water Act program. EPA recently finalized a new
regulation providing a mandatory duty for EPA to step in when a
state fails to establish TMDLs. For the first time, states will be
required to develop implementation plans as part of their TMDLs to
determine how pollution controls will be allocated and how the state
will ensure that waterbodies maintain water quality standards.
States are required to track whether waterbodies will attain water
quality standards and those waterbodies that will not meet these
standards must have a revised TMDL. Sensibly, the new rule focuses
immediate attention on waterbodies that are sources of drinking
water or habitat for threatened or endangered species.
Permitting Guidance for Impaired Waters
Rider
Status: Enacted on 10/27/00 as part of H.R. 4635,
the FY 2001 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill
(Pub. L. No. 106-377)
A rider was slipped into the report
language for the EPA funding bill that undermines implementation of
the TMDL program by encouraging EPA to revoke a Clean Water Act
guidance document issued by Region IX. This document is deemed by
the House Appropriations Committee to be too "stringent" for the
business community.
Joint Resolutions of Disapproval of the TMDL Rule
"TMDL
Regulatory Accountability Act of 2000"
H.J. Res. 105,
Rep. Marion Berry (D-Ark.); S.J. Res. 50, Sen. Michael Crapo
(R-Idaho); H.R. 4922, Rep. Charlie Stenholm
(D-Texas)
Status: Referred to the House Transportation
Water Resources Subcommittee; Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee
The new TMDL rule quickly came under attack from
both riders and bills designed to block its implementation. Rep.
Marion Berry (D-Ark.) and 23 others introduced House Joint
Resolution 105 to undo the TMDL rule, by invoking a procedural
mechanism in the "Congressional Review Act" passed by Congress as
part of the Contract with America to provide Congress with an
expedited process to nullify administrative rules. Sen. Crapo also
introduced a joint resolution to strike down the new TMDL rule.
Another attack came in the form of H.R. 4922, sponsored by Rep.
Charlie Stenholm (D-Texas) and supported by Rep. Sherwood Boehlert
(R-N.Y.), a bill that would have diverted EPA's resources from
implementing the rule by reopening the regulatory comment period and
mandating additional public meetings, and would have created new
opportunities to delay or kill the rule without following the normal
administrative procedures. The bill mandated a cost-benefit study
and a study by the National Academy of Sciences of the scientific
basis underlying TMDLs and required the EPA to determine whether or
not to alter the new rules based upon the results of these new
studies. While this bill foundered, several of its provisions were
included as report language in the EPA funding bill's conference
report. This report language requires additional studies by the
National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Public
Administration.
CLEAN WATER ACT - STANDING IN PLACE
"Combined Sewer Overflow Control and Partnership Act of
1999"
S. 914, Sen. Robert Smith (R-N.H.); H.R. 828,
Rep. James Barcia (D-Mich.)
Status: Enacted on
12/21/00 as part of H.R. 4577, the FY 2001 Omnibus Appropriations
bill (Pub. L. No. 106-554)
On 9/28, the House Transportation
Committee approved Rep. Barcia's H.R. 828, the "Combined Sewer
Overflow Control and Partnership Act of 1999." The bill, as
originally drafted by a consortium of cities with combined sewer
systems, contained many objectionable provisions, but before markup,
the bill was revised and improved substantially. A very similar
bill, S. 914, was introduced in the Senate in April by Sen. Smith.
However, neither bill, nor the final version that was enacted, will
do that much to strengthen protections for water from combined sewer
overflows (CSO).
Combined sewers carry both domestic "sanitary" sewage and
industrial wastes, as well as runoff from city streets. Combined
systems are designed to carry sewage to wastewater treatment plants,
but, these systems become overloaded and overflow, dumping untreated
sewage directly into waterways. CSO discharges contain raw sewage,
floatable garbage, industrial waste, oil and grease pollution from
autos and trucks, and many other pollutants. CSO discharges are a
principal cause of shellfish bed closures, beach advisories, odors
and other aesthetic problems in cities with combined sewer
systems.
Despite the development of a national policy guidance supported
by environmental groups, very little progress has been made by
cities and towns to address these overflows. In communities where
progress has been made, credit is largely due to lawsuits filed by a
state agency, a citizen organization or the Federal government. The
rider as passed contains some poorly worded provisions, but in
general, it will not greatly change the state of the law on combined
sewer systems. It fails, however, to address the widespread
noncompliance with the CSO policy or the need for substantial
federal funding to update our clean and safe water infrastructure
across the country.
DAMAGE DONE TO WATER, COASTAL & MARINE RESOURCES
ENACTED STEPS FORWARD |
5 BILLS: BEACH BILL ESTUARY RESTORATION
BILL CORAL BILL SHARK FINNING PROHIBITION
ACT NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT
|
ENACTED STEPS BACK |
4 SIGNIFICANT RIDERS: CJS COASTAL IMPACT
RIDER TMDL RIDER CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS RIDER STELLER
SEA LION RIDER |
Back to
contents page | Next
page