Order Code RL32699
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Natural Resources:
Selected Issues for the 109th Congress
August 22, 2005
Nicole Carter and Carol Hardy Vincent, Coordinators
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Natural Resources:
Selected Issues for the 109th Congress
Summary
The 109th Congress is considering natural resource management issues involving
how the federal government should balance multiple uses and invest in resource
development and protection. These issues affect local communities, industries,
ecosystems, and the nation. This report introduces 30 key policy issues in five broad
categories that the 109th Congress is addressing or may address through
authorizations, appropriations, or oversight. While this report will be updated
occasionally, many of the cited CRS products are updated more frequently.
Certain themes often are common to consideration of most natural resource
questions. Many conflicts center on balancing resource use and protection. The
desirability of current versus alternative uses and protection programs, whether
resources should be managed to produce national or local benefits, and how to
balance current uses with future supplies and opportunities are also common themes.
Other resource questions involve the effect of federal resource management on
privately owned lands and the role of scientific data in decision making.
Federal lands questions before the 109th Congress include how much and which
land the government should own, how to prioritize uses (e.g., grazing, timber,
habitat, recreation), who should manage federal lands, and whether to designate
additional special areas. There are financial questions as well, such as whether and
how to collect or change fees for land uses and to dispose of collected funds.
The 109th Congress is considering recommendations from two ocean
commissions for a more coordinated national ocean policy and a reorganization of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Congress also is debating
reauthorization of fisheries, marine mammal, and coastal zone management
legislation, and the Senate may address the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Federal species management and ecosystem protection are receiving much
attention during the 109th Congress. Topics include whether to: amend the
Endangered Species Act, develop legislation to prevent or respond to invasive
species, alter protection of international species, support efforts to protect and restore
wetlands, and expand or curtail specific large-scale ecosystem restoration efforts.
Increased competition for water has fostered interest in the federal role in water
resources, particularly for water supply and river management. The 109th Congress
is considering transboundary water resource management, and assistance for rural
water supply, municipal water supply, and aging dams.
An array of other natural resource policy issues are being debated in the 109th
Congress. They include whether to expand availability of federal lands for
development of energy and mineral resources, and whether to alter the federal role
in natural disaster mitigation. Questions on federal involvement in managing natural
resources on private and Indian lands and tribal uses of non-Indian resources also are
ongoing.
Contributors
Name
Primary Agency/Issue Area
E-mail
Phone
Federal Lands and Resources
Pamela Baldwin
legal issues
pbaldwin@crs.loc.gov
7-8597
Kori Calvert
recreation and reference
kcalvert@crs.loc.gov
7-6459
M. Lynne Corn
Fish and Wildlife Service
lcorn@crs.loc.gov
7-7267
Ross Gorte
U.S. Forest Service
rgorte@crs.loc.gov
7-7266
Carol Hardy Vincent
Bureau of Land Management
chvincent@crs.loc.gov
7-8651
Sandra Johnson
trails and rivers
sjohnson@crs.loc.gov
7-7214
Kyna Powers
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
kpowers@crs.loc.gov
7-6881
David Whiteman
National Park Service
dwhiteman@crs.loc.gov
7-7786
Ocean Affairs and Earth Sciences
Marjorie Browne
treaties and international agreements
mbrowne@crs.loc.gov
7-7695
Eugene Buck
fish and marine mammals
gbuck@crs.loc.gov
7-7262
John Justus
ocean and climate sciences
jjustus@crs.loc.gov
7-7078
Wayne Morrissey
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin.
wmorrissey@crs.loc.gov
7-7072
Pervaze Sheikh
U.S. Geological Survey
psheikh@crs.loc.gov
7-6070
Jeffrey Zinn
coastal zone
jzinn@crs.loc.gov
7-7257
Species Management and Ecosystem Protection
Pamela Baldwin
legal issues
pbaldwin@crs.loc.gov
7-8597
Eugene Buck
aquatic species
gbuck@crs.loc.gov
7-7262
M. Lynne Corn
terrestrial species
lcorn@crs.loc.gov
7-7267
Pervaze Sheikh
ecosystem restoration, international species
psheikh@crs.loc.gov
7-6070
Jeffrey Zinn
wetlands
jzinn@crs.loc.gov
7-7257
Water Resources
Nicole Carter
Corps authorizations, water research
ncarter@crs.loc.gov
7-0854
Betsy Cody
Bureau of Reclamation, water policy
bcody@crs.loc.gov
7-7229
H. Steve Hughes
water institutions, Corps budgets
not available
7-7268
Kyna Powers
dams and hydropower
kpowers@crs.loc.gov
7-6881
Pervaze Sheikh
ecosystem restoration
psheikh@crs.loc.gov
7-6070
Stephen Viña
legal issues
svina@crs.loc.gov
7-8079
Other
Keith Bea
natural disaster response and mitigation
kbea@crs.loc.gov
7-8672
M. Lynne Corn
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)
lcorn@crs.loc.gov
7-7267
Aaron Flynn
energy and mineral legal issues
aflynn@crs.loc.gov
7-4877
Marc Humphries
energy resources on federal lands
mhumphries@crs.loc.gov
7-7264
Roger Walke
Indian lands and resources
rwalke@crs.loc.gov
7-8641
Jeffrey Zinn
private land conservation
jzinn@crs.loc.gov
7-7257
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Natural Resource Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Federal Lands and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Federal Estate: Ownership and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Federal Land Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Forests and Fire Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
National Park Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Rangelands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Wilderness and Roadless Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Ocean Affairs and Earth Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Assessing Ocean Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Atmospheric and Oceanic Research, Operations, and Services . . . . . . . 8
Coastal Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Fishery and Marine Mammal Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Natural Hazards and Mapping Data Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Species Management and Ecosystem Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
International Species Protection and Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Invasive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Large-Scale Ecosystem Restoration and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Wetlands Protection and Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Assessing Federal Water Resources Policy and Research . . . . . . . . . . 15
Army Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Dams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Rural and Municipal Water Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Transboundary Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Water Use Challenges and River Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Arctic Oil, Arctic Refuge (ANWR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Energy and Mineral Resources on Federal Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Indian Lands and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Natural Disaster Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Private Land Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Natural Resources:
Selected Issues for the 109th Congress
Introduction
Decisions on how to develop, manage, and protect the nation’s natural resources
have economic, social, and environmental implications. Some impacts are local,
others are national or international. This report briefly discusses selected natural
resource issues that the 109th Congress is addressing or may consider through
oversight, authorizations, or appropriations. Although for the most part these topics
are not new for Congress, the 109th Congress is considering some different policy
options than those considered during earlier Congresses. This report will be updated
only occasionally; however, it lists some of the related CRS products that provide
more detailed information. For a complete listing of CRS products on natural
resource issues, see the CRS web page at [http://www.crs.gov/products/
browse/is-environment.shtml].
This report introduces 30 natural resource issues, many of which are complex
and interrelated. Some discussions are site- or agency-specific, such as the entry on
the Army Corps of Engineers, while others are national or international in scope,
such as the section on “Assessing Ocean Policy.” Others deal with specific
resources, for instance, the Forests and Fire Management entry. The 30 issues have
been grouped into five categories, including a miscellaneous “Other” category, as
follows:
! Federal Lands and Resources
! Ocean Affairs and Earth Sciences
! Species Management and Ecosystem Protection
! Water Resources
! Other
Certain themes often are prevalent during consideration of resource questions.
Common themes include the desirability of current versus alternative uses and
protection programs, whether resources should be managed to produce national or
local benefits, and how to balance current uses with future supplies and opportunities
are also common themes. Conflicting views reflect different values, needs, and
perceptions of the condition of resources and the sustainability of uses. A related
debate is over whether natural resources should be managed primarily to produce
national benefits or benefits for the localities and states in which they are located.
Who decides how natural resources should be managed and how the decisions
are made have also been topics of discussion. Some stakeholders seek to maintain
or enhance the federal role in resource management. Others support more local
influence or international decision making in some cases. Conflicts over natural
CRS-2
resources in the United States perhaps have intensified as a result of pressures from
overall population growth and economic development nationally and worldwide.
Another theme in resource discussions is the role of science in multiple areas, such
as determining the health and availability of resources and the extent and impact of
changing resource conditions. The 109th Congress is weighing whether federal funds
for natural resources issues are adequate and focused on the appropriate resource
priorities.
Congress deals with natural resource issues on a number of fronts. Key laws,
programs, and issues are handled by several authorizing committees in the House and
Senate. Also, many issues involve several committees, such as those involving
wetlands protection and restoration. In addition, natural resource issues often are
addressed during consideration of bills providing annual appropriations for natural
resource agencies, programs, and activities.1 In many cases, natural resource issues
do not divide along clear party lines. Instead, they often are split along rural-urban,
eastern-western, coastal-interior, or upstream-downstream interests.
A number of the natural resources issues in this report are intertwined with
issues in other policy areas. For example, the relationship between natural resources
management and environmental protection are evident in many issues, such as
groundwater contamination’s effect on rural water supply. (For information on
environmental quality and protection issues, see CRS Issue Brief IB10146,
Environmental Protection Issues in the 109th Congress, coordinated by Susan
Fletcher and Margaret Isler.) Cross-cutting issues are included in this report if the
congressional concern revolves principally around resource conditions and supply.
Similarly, debates on energy policy encompass questions of access to energy
resources and the impact of energy production on lands and resources. While a few
energy resource issues are covered in this report, information on energy policy
broadly is contained in CRS Issue Brief IB10143, Energy Policy: Comprehensive
Energy Legislation (H.R. 6) in the 109th Congress, by Robert L. Bamberger and Carl
E. Behrens. Many natural resource issues, especially ones dealing with resource
conditions and uses on private lands, overlap with agricultural topics. For
information on federal conservation programs for agricultural lands, see CRS Issue
Brief IB96030, Soil and Water Conservation Issues, by Jeffrey A. Zinn. Finally,
climate change may have implications for natural resources, including agriculture,
forestry, fisheries, water availability, and ecosystem health, and may contribute to
changes in the intensity, location, and timing of some natural disasters, such as
flooding, drought, and hurricanes. For information on climate change, see CRS Issue
Brief IB89005, Global Climate Change, by John R. Justus and Susan R. Fletcher.
1 For information on appropriations bills and issues, and links to CRS reports, see the CRS
appropriations page at [http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml].
CRS-3
Natural Resource Issues
Federal Lands and Resources
Federal Estate: Ownership and Issues. The federal government owns
about 670 million acres — nearly 30% — of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the
United States. The percentage of federal ownership in some western states is
significantly higher. Four agencies administer about 95% of federal lands: the Forest
Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service
(NPS), all in the Department of the Interior (DOI).
The ownership of lands by the federal government has long generated
controversy and continues to do so in the 109th Congress. A key area of debate is
how much land the federal government should own — and hence whether some
federal lands should be disposed to state or private ownership, or some land should
be acquired for conservation, open space, and other purposes. For lands retained in
federal ownership, debates may involve whether to curtail certain land designations
(e.g., national monuments proclaimed by the President or special management
entities established by Congress) or if current management procedures should be
changed (e.g., to allow a greater role for state and local governments or to expand
economic considerations in decision-making). Also, the extent to which federal
lands should be preserved, made available for development or resource extraction,
or opened to recreational uses raises a variety of related resources policy matters,
especially with respect to preserving wildlife habitat, designating wilderness areas,
developing energy resources, grazing livestock, and harvesting timber. Further, the
various types of federal lands typically are administered under separate statutes. The
109th Congress is reviewing various aspects of these issues.
CRS Products
CRS Report RL32393, Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on
Land and Resources Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL30126, Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority; the
History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention; and Current Acquisition and
Disposal Authorities, by Ross W. Gorte and Pamela Baldwin.
Federal Land Funding. Funding for federal lands continues to be
contentious. Federal lands and natural resource programs must compete against other
federal priorities (defense, education, etc.) as well as internally among the several
land and resource management agencies. Some policy questions relate to setting fees
(e.g., recreation and grazing fees, discussed in “Recreation” and “Rangelands”
below). One perennial question relates to funding from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF). This account is credited with deposits of $900 million
annually, but the funds can only be spent when Congress enacts appropriations.
Attention in the 109th Congress has centered on (1) the amount to appropriate
annually to each of the four eligible federal land management agencies, and to the
state grant program; (2) which lands should be acquired; and (3) use of LWCF funds
CRS-4
for purposes other than land acquisition. The primary context for debating these
issues has been the annual Interior appropriations legislation.
Another contentious issue is compensating counties for the tax-exempt status
of federal lands. Appropriations for the primary program, Payments in Lieu of Taxes
(PILT), have not kept pace with the increasing authorized level. The 109th Congress
has addressed PILT funding as part of annual Interior appropriations legislation. In
addition, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (P.L.
106-393) was enacted to offset FS and BLM payments that had declined due to lower
timber sales. This act expires at the end of FY2006, and hearings have been held in
the 109th Congress to consider whether to retain the law and, if so, in what form.
CRS Products
CRS Report RL32893, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
Appropriations for FY2006, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent and Susan Boren.
CRS Report RS21503, Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and
Issues, by Jeffrey A. Zinn.
CRS Report RL31392, PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified,
by M. Lynne Corn.
Forests and Fire Management. In recent years, wildfires have killed
firefighters, burned homes, threatened communities, and destroyed trees. Reducing
fuels in the federal forests has been proposed to reduce the threats from fire, although
the threats are not limited to federal forests. In December 2003, Congress enacted
the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (P.L. 108-148) to facilitate forest fuel reduction
activities and for other purposes indirectly related to wildfire protection. Oversight
and funding of fire programs are being considered by the 109th Congress.
The Bush Administration has made numerous regulatory changes related to
forest management, public involvement in Forest Service planning and decision
making, environmental impacts of FS activities, and fuel reduction. Changes
include
! categorical exclusions from analysis and documentation under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), involving activities
including fuel reduction, post-fire rehabilitation, and “small” timber
sales;
! modified review procedures, for example, for administrative review
and internal Endangered Species Act consultations; and
! new rules governing national forest uses, such as for issuing special
use permits and for protecting roadless areas. These changes
necessarily alter forest management, set forth in forest plans
prepared under the National Forest Management Act of 1976
(NFMA; 16 U.S.C. §§1600-1616, et al.).
The Bush Administration also has promulgated new regulations governing NFMA
planning, and there is substantial uncertainty over management of the national
CRS-5
forests. The 109th Congress may conduct oversight or consider legislation related to
some or all of the proposed changes.
CRS Products
CRS Issue Brief IB10076, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands and
National Forests, coordinated by Ross W. Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL30755, Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection, by Ross W. Gorte.
National Park Management. The National Park Service mission, to provide
for the public enjoyment of parklands while protecting park resources, has fostered
continuing management challenges. For instance, although the NPS is working to
define and quantify its maintenance needs, the extent of progress toward eliminating
the agency’s multibillion dollar backlog of deferred maintenance remains unclear.
Questions for Congress include the adequacy of efforts to reduce the backlog,
sufficiency of funds for the maintenance backlog, and the balance between
eliminating the backlog and other NPS priorities. Congress funds and oversees NPS
efforts to enhance security, particularly for Park units near or along U.S. borders and
at national icons, such as the Washington Monument and Statue of Liberty. Congress
is monitoring the role of “partnership” groups that raise funds for the NPS. Congress
has concerns that large-scale construction projects financed by partnership groups
may increase operation and maintenance funding needs and influence agency
priorities. In addition, Congress is debating many park and recreation bills to
designate or study sites for particular purposes or uses, or to adjust the boundaries of
park units are being debated.
National Heritage Areas (NHAs), which are designated by Congress, receive
technical and financial assistance from the NPS but are not federally owned. Due to
the large number of existing NHAs, and pendnig legislation to study and designate
additional areas, Congress is considering legislation to provide consistent criteria for
NHA designation, management, and funding. The Urban Park and Recreation
Recovery program provides federal grants to urban areas for rehabilitation of
recreational facilities; it has not received funding in recent appropriations laws.
CRS Products
CRS Issue Brief IB10126, Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current
Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent and David Whiteman.
CRS Issue Brief IB10145, National Park Management, coordinated by Carol
Hardy Vincent.
Rangelands. Federal rangelands management presents an array of matters for
Congress. They include Bureau of Land Management changes to grazing regulations
to improve grazing administration overall; these changes are supported by some, but
criticized by others either as unnecessary or as removing important environmental
protections. Another rangelands focus involves the automatic renewal of expiring
grazing permits and leases, with one law authorizing temporary renewal without
requirements for environmental studies, for those permits and leases expiring through
CRS-6
FY2008. Further, the federal grazing fee for private livestock grazing on federal
lands has been controversial since its inception. Instances of grazing on federal land
without a permit or payment of fees, and agency actions to fine and jail owners and
impound and sell trespassing cattle, also have been contentious.
Federal rangeland condition is a recurring interest for Congress, with oversight
of agency efforts to inventory, monitor, and improve range conditions as well as
enhance their productivity. Restricting or eliminating grazing on some federal land
because of environmental and recreational concerns is being considered. Also, many
view invasive and noxious weeds as an expanding threat to the health and
productivity of rangelands. (See “Invasive Species” below.) Other range matters
include the consistency of BLM and FS grazing programs, access across private
lands, and management of riparian areas. In addition, concern continues about
BLM’s wild horse and burro program and related provisions of law, including the
removal, adoption, and sale of animals. The slaughter of healthy animals has been
a particular concern.
CRS Products
CRS Issue Brief IB10076, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands and
National Forests, coordinated by Ross W. Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL32244, Grazing Regulations and Policies: Changes by the
Bureau of Land Management, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
Recreation. The federal land management agencies administer most U.S.
government land for multiple purposes, including preservation, recreation, and
natural resources development; however, the preservation, appropriate recreation use,
and resource protection mandates vary considerably among management agencies.
The preservation/use dichotomy is a focal point for debate over recreation on federal
lands. Key topics include access for recreation generally; motorized off-highway
vehicle use and policies for BLM and FS areas; and the use of personal watercraft,
snowmobiles, and aircraft for NPS units. Specific conflicts for NPS units center on
snowmobiles in three Yellowstone area parks, air tour overflights and “natural quiet”
at Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP), and the proposed Colorado River
Management Plan for GCNP to allocate permits for motorized and non-motorized
boats. Other matters include the effect of recreation, especially motorized recreation,
on natural resources, visitor experience, and local economies.
Debate also is continuing over trails; while trail designation is often popular,
questions remain regarding their quantity, quality, and funding. Pending legislative
include adding routes to the National Trails System, authorizing studies of routes for
addition to the system, creating new categories of trails, and authorizing land
acquisition from willing sellers for certain trails. Recreation debates also arise in
areas managed by other federal agencies, such as reservoirs and rivers managed by
the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation. Subjects of congressional
oversight include balancing recreational water needs and other purposes, financing
maintenance of recreational facilities, and developing policies for recreational
development and land use. Congress also is overseeing agency efforts to establish,
collect, and distribute fees for recreation at federal lands and waters.
CRS-7
CRS Products
CRS Report RS22171, Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, by Carol
Hardy Vincent.
CRS Issue Brief IB10141, Recreation on Federal Lands, coordinated by Kori
Calvert and Carol Hardy Vincent.
Wilderness and Roadless Areas. Federal agencies manage some federal
lands to preserve natural conditions for biological, recreational, or scenic purposes.
In 1964, the Wilderness Act created the National Wilderness Preservation System,
with statutory protections that emphasize preserving areas in their natural state.
Although a few exceptions were provided in the act, wilderness areas included in the
System generally cannot have permanent roads and structures, and use of machines
and mechanized travel generally is limited. Units of the System can only be
designated by Congress. Many bills to designate wilderness areas are introduced in
each Congress; more than 20 have been introduced in the 109th Congress.
Designation of new wilderness areas can be controversial. Many areas currently
being considered are managed by BLM under the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA). Whether FLPMA allows the BLM to conduct additional
wilderness inventories or to create new Wilderness Study Areas are current legal
questions, and the possible development of language to release undesignated study
areas to multiple use management presents policy issues. In addition, some BLM
lands do not include the headwaters of water sources flowing through the land, which
may raise water rights and other issues as part of congressional consideration of
designating BLM wilderness areas.
Management for the remaining national forest roadless areas remains a
controversial issue. The Clinton Administration promulgated nationwide rules to
administratively protect the remaining inventoried roadless areas in the National
Forest System by precluding most roads and timber harvesting. These roadless rules
have been called de facto wilderness management even though roads and timbering
were allowed in more instances than is true for areas in the National Wilderness
Preservation System. The validity of the rules was litigated, and enforcement of the
rules enjoined. The Bush Administration has finalized new rules (70 Fed. Reg.
25654, May 13, 2005) that eliminate a nationwide approach, return management of
roadless areas to the normal planning process for each forest unit, and give governors
of the various states the option of making recommendations on the management of
roadless areas in their states. The new rules have made moot the litigation over the
previous rules. Congress may conduct oversight of agency rulemaking on roadless
areas or consider related legislation.
CRS Products
CRS Report RS21917, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wilderness Review
Issues, by Ross W. Gorte and Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RL30647, The National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative,
by Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RL31447, Wilderness: Overview and Statistics, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS-8
Ocean Affairs and Earth Sciences
Assessing Ocean Policy. The 109th Congress is considering legislative
responses to the findings and recommendations of two ocean policy reports: June
2003 Pew Oceans Commission report, America’s Living Oceans: Charting a Course
for Sea Change, and September 2004 report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century. These reports covered an array of
issues, such as Law of the Sea (see “U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea” below);
national and regional governance; federal organization, regulation, and enforcement;
offshore management regimes; funding for sound science and research and for
implementing commission recommendations; oceanic education; coastal and
watershed management; and ecosystem-based management. Ancillary issues relate
to questions about the timing and level of the response and the fiscal implications and
out-year budgetary impacts on current and future ocean programs. While some argue
that congressional action is needed for major coastal and marine laws that are
expiring or expired, others counsel delay in reauthorization until Congress can
respond to the reports.
The President’s U.S. Ocean Action Plan, in response to the U.S. Commission
on Policy was delivered to Congress on December 17, 2004. It focused largely on
documenting current programs. Many in the ocean community view the
Administration’s response as limited; however, Committees of relevant jurisdiction
have adhered to their own ocean action agendas, in large part guided by the Pew and
U.S. Commission reports, and have shown little interest in holding hearings to assess
the Administration’s statement.
The 109th Congress also is considering other ocean matters, including ocean
exploration; ocean and coastal observing systems; marine debris research, prevention,
and reduction; and ocean and coastal mapping integration. Related issues have
arisen, such as whether to: (1) provide additional funds for ocean-related research;
(2) replace a fragmented administrative structure with a more overall, coherent
federal organization; and (3) adopt bold new approaches for managing marine
resources, such as setting aside large reserves from selected or all uses.
Comprehensive bills encompassing this array of crosscutting concerns are being
considered by the 109th Congress.
CRS Products
CRS Issue Brief IB10132, Ocean Commissions: Ocean Policy Review and
Outlook, by John Justus, Eugene H. Buck, Jeffery Zinn, and Wayne Morrissey.
Atmospheric and Oceanic Research, Operations, and Services.
Atmospheric and oceanic research is conducted for a variety of reasons, such as
improving weather forecasts and warnings issued by the National Weather Service,
monitoring air quality, assessing water availability, and detecting climate change.
Much of civilian oceanic and atmospheric research is done by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, but other federal agencies also contribute. NOAA
also performs a variety of other activities ranging from climate outlooks to marine
fisheries management.
CRS-9
Funding for NOAA is currently authorized under several laws, because
programs from different federal agencies were merged into the agency when it was
created in 1970 and placed in the Department of Commerce (DOC). Some
lawmakers have proposed a single authorization for all NOAA programs, or a NOAA
organic act. Although much of the current interest in NOAA authorization is driven
by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommendations, which focus on federal
agency-wide coordination of ocean and coastal programs under NOAA, there also is
an historical precedent of congressional interest in creating a NOAA organic act. The
109th Congress also may debate related organizational issues, such as whether to
establish NOAA as an independent agency, transfer it to another department, or
maintain its status quo within the DOC but with enhanced budget authority.
CRS Products
CRS Report RL32309, Appropriations for FY2005: Commerce, Justice, State,
the Judiciary, and Related Agencies (section entitled “A NOAA Organic Act”),
coordinated by Ian F. Fergusson and Susan B. Epstein.
CRS Report RS22109, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Budget for FY2006: President’s Request, Congressional Appropriations,
and Related Issues, by Wayne A. Morrissey.
CRS Issue Brief IB10132, Ocean Commissions: Ocean Policy Review and
Outlook, by John Justus, Eugene H. Buck, Jeffrey Zinn, and Wayne Morrissey.
Coastal Resources. Coastal resource issues almost always involve conflicts
between human activities in coastal areas and protection of natural resources. While
the country’s coastal counties are only 17% of the nation’s area, they are home to
more than 50% of the country’s population and jobs. Conflicts may increase in
number and intensity as population and development continue to concentrate in
coastal areas. Currently, development is concentrated along the shoreline of most
coastal counties, where it can displace or disrupt wetlands, beaches and dunes,
estuaries, and other highly productive natural systems. At the same time, the
shoreline is exposed to hazardous natural forces including ocean storms, high winds,
and flooding. Where the shoreline is developed, property owners try to stabilize it
which can increase the loss from hazards, and subsequent federal outlays.
The coastal zone management program is the central federal effort for managing
coastal development and resource protection. The authorization of appropriations
expired at the end of FY1999, and the 109th Congress, like earlier ones, is considering
reauthorization legislation. The program provides federal grants to assist states and
territories in creating and administering federally approved plans for development
and protection. Statutory and regulatory guidance for these plans give participants
considerable latitude as to which topics they emphasize. The program also gives
participants leverage over federal actions in or affecting coastal zones by requiring
those actions to be consistent with approved plans. In addition to reauthorization,
Congress may consider programs for specific coastal resource topics, such as
estuaries, wetlands, beach erosion, or coastal barriers. Many other federal programs
that apply more broadly have large coastal components, such as resource protection
programs for certain federal lands (e.g., seashore units of the National Park System
CRS-10
and units of the National Wildlife Refuge System), and the National Flood Insurance
Program. (See “Natural Disaster Mitigation” below.)
CRS Products
CRS Report RS20498, Coastal Zone Management Reauthorization: An
Overview, by Jeffrey A. Zinn.
Fishery and Marine Mammal Policy. Two recent ocean policy reports,
discussed in “Assessing Ocean Policy” above, expressed concern over U.S.
management and use of fish and marine mammals. These reports recommend
measures to address declining fish stocks, to protect marine mammal populations,
and to improve the sustainability and competitiveness of the U.S. commercial fishing
industry. Authorizations of appropriations for both the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) and the Marine Mammal Protection
Act (MMPA) have expired. The MSFCMA authorizes federal management of
fishing in waters of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone beyond state jurisdiction to
200 miles offshore. The MMPA prohibits taking of marine mammals unless
permitted under several programs. The 109th Congress is considering legislation to
reauthorize and amend both the MSFCMA and the MMPA.
Among the topics likely to arise in amending the MSFCMA are modifying
management of bycatch, managing larger marine ecosystems, and increasing
protecting for unique habitats, with possible policy questions concerning the
legislative designation of marine protected areas. Proposed reforms also include
creating user fees and other revenue sources to fund conservation, management, and
enforcement. Other proposed changes seek to promote the collection of necessary
data and ensure that regional fishery management council decisions are fair and
balanced. Other proposals aim to enhance the stability of the fishing industry by
implementing programs to reduce fishing capacity and establish national standards
for individual fishing quota programs.
Likely topics of debate for amending the MMPA include modifying
management of commercial fishing interactions, robust wild stocks, and captive
marine mammals; actions fostering international cooperation on managing marine
mammal populations may also be considered. Discussions of regulatory changes
may encompass subsistence use of marine mammals by Native Americans, effects
of underwater noise of human origin, and incidental takes of marine mammals.
CRS Products
CRS Issue Brief IB10139, Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal
Legislation in the 109th Congress, by Eugene H. Buck.
CRS Report RL30215, The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act: Reauthorization Issues, by Eugene H. Buck and Daniel A.
Waldeck.
CRS Report RL30120, The Marine Mammal Protection Act: Reauthorization
Issues, by Eugene H. Buck.
CRS-11
Natural Hazards and Mapping Data Management. The federal
government funds natural hazards research through the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) and other agencies. Federal research is contributing to scientific
understanding of the causes of disasters, such as tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes,
floods, earthquakes, and volcanic activity; identifying potential disaster locations;
projecting possible impacts; and assessing extent of post-disaster damage and loss.
Disaster-related data and warnings are disseminated electronically to international
agencies of concern. Also, disaster decision support has been assisted by federally
developed technologies including automated geographic information systems (GIS),
satellite remote sensing and locator devices, and detection and warning systems. The
federal government also funds preventative approaches to disaster management, such
as, mitigation funding. (See “Natural Hazards Mitigation” below.) Recent
congressional debate about natural hazards includes defining appropriate roles for the
federal government, assessing the effectiveness of current approaches for saving lives
and property, and determining whether current policies are cost effective at the
national level.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the Department of
Homeland Security, is implementing a Flood Map Modernization Initiative (FMMI),
through which it plans to digitally produce new floodplain maps and digitize paper
maps by 2008. FEMA contends these new maps will be more geographically
accurate. Congress is concerned about the progress of FMMI, its cost, and related
issues such as benefits for homeland security, public access to data, and right-to-
privacy. One particularly contentious issue concerns multiple federal mapping
programs and conflicting regulations in coastal areas. The Coastal Barrier Resources
Act (CBRA) would deny some property owners access to federal flood insurance,
even if FEMA would otherwise insure them. Also, some communities have been
exempted by law from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and are
developing on floodplains and in FEMA-designated regulated floodways. Issues for
the 109th Congress include approaches to federal disaster management, modernization
of flood maps, access to mapping data, and legislation to exempt some property
owners from CBRA and NFIP.
CRS Products
CRS Report RL32242, Emergency Management Funding for the Department
of Homeland Security: Information and Issues for FY2005, by Keith Bea, Shawn
Reese, Wayne Morrissey, Frank Gottron, and C. Stephen Redhead.
CRS Report RL31691, FEMA’s Flood Hazard Map Modernization Initiative,
by Wayne A. Morrissey.
CRS Report RL32739, Tsunamis: Monitoring, Detection, and Early Warning
Systems, by Wayne A. Morrisey.
U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. The 1982 United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1994 Agreement Relating to
Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
remain pending before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The Convention
established a legal regime governing activities on, over, and under the world’s
oceans.
CRS-12
If, as it did in 2004, the Committee again favorably recommends Senate advice
and consent to U.S. adherence, this convention may be an issue for the full Senate in
the 109th Congress. The following have been among recent arguments presented in
support of U.S. adherence: participation would protect U.S. interests during ongoing
deliberations by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, which was
created by the Convention, and enable the United States to submit its own limits; and
participation would enhance U.S. efforts to amend the Convention. November 16,
2004, marked the first opportunity for the proposal of amendments to the
Convention. Some opponents to U.S. adherence assert that participation in the
Convention would be contrary to U.S. national security interests, especially as the
United States carries out its counter-terrorism programs. Opponents also maintain
that fundamental concerns raised in 1982 by the Reagan Administration were not
corrected by the 1994 Agreement, and are concerned about the extent to which
adherence would infringe on U.S. sovereignty.
CRS Products
CRS Issue Brief IB95010, The Law of the Sea Convention and U.S. Policy, by
Marjorie Ann Browne.
CRS Report RL32185, U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea: Living
Resources Provisions, by Eugene H. Buck.
CRS Report RS21890, The U.N. Law of the Sea Convention and the United
States: Developments Since October 2003, by Marjorie Ann Browne.
Species Management and Ecosystem Protection
Endangered Species. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) has been
one of the more contentious environmental laws. This may stem from its strict
substantive provisions, which can affect the use of both federal and nonfederal lands
and resources. Under the ESA, species of plants and animals (both vertebrate and
invertebrate) can be listed as endangered or threatened according to assessments of
their risk of extinction. Once species are listed, legal tools are available to aid their
recovery and protect their habitat. The ESA also may be controversial because
dwindling species usually are harbingers of resource scarcity: the most common
cause of listing species is habitat loss. The authorization for spending under the ESA
expired on October 1, 1992. The prohibitions and requirements of the ESA remain
in force, even in the absence of an authorization, and funds have been appropriated
to implement the administrative provisions of the ESA in each subsequent fiscal year.
The 109th Congress is focusing on various proposals to amend the ESA. Policy
questions include changes to the role of science in decision-making; changes to the
definition, extent, and process for designating critical habitat; further protections for
private property owners’ interests; and encouragement of increased landowner
protection of listed species.
CRS Products
CRS Issue Brief IB10144, Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109th Congress:
Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices, by Eugene H. Buck, M. Lynne Corn, and
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS-13
International Species Protection and Conservation. The United States
is involved in the conservation of foreign species and natural areas through various
laws and international treaties, such as the ESA and the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). CITES is an international agreement among
national governments that aims to ensure that the international trade in plants and
animals does not threaten their survival. The ESA protects foreign endangered
species by limiting or banning their import into the United States, and implements
CITES. Overall, the ESA has a more comprehensive approach to foreign species
protection than CITES. For example, the ESA protects species based on several
criteria that may threaten their survival, whereas CITES protects species based solely
on the threat of trade to survival. The United States also assists in the conservation
of some high-visibility foreign species (e.g., tigers and elephants) by providing funds
for conserving their populations and habitat through the Multinational Species
Conservation Fund. The United States also promotes the conservation of tropical
forests in developing countries, most notably through debt-for-nature transactions
under the Tropical Forest Conservation Act.
The 109th Congress is considering whether protection for foreign species under
the ESA should be modified to more closely follow CITES. For example, Congress
may oversee a proposed FWS policy to allow limited imports of endangered foreign
species if the import enhances the species’ population. The proposed policy would
move ESA protections closer to CITES. The 109th Congress also may conduct
oversight on the implementation of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, restoration
of Iraqi marshlands, and the conservation of international fisheries.
CRS Products
CRS Report RL32751, The Convention on International Trade of Endangered
Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES): Background and Issues, by Pervaze A.
Sheikh and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report RL31286, Debt-for-Nature Initiatives and the Tropical Forest
Conservation Act: Status and Implementation, by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RS21157, Multinational Species Conservation Fund, by Pervaze
A. Sheikh and M. Lynne Corn.
Invasive Species. The 109th Congress is weighing whether new legislative
authorities and funding are needed to address issues of non-native species and their
increasing economic and ecological impacts. A major unanswered question is who
should be responsible for ensuring economic integrity and ecological stability in
response to the actual or potential impacts of non-native species. To date the
congressional response to problems posed by harmful non-native species generally
has been to address specific non-native species, such as brown tree snakes on Guam
and impure seed stocks. A few notable efforts have begun to address specific
pathways (e.g., ship ballast water through the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act), but no current law addresses the general concern over
non-native species and the wide variety of paths by which they enter this country. In
addition to the benefits that legislation may have on natural resources suffering
biological damage as a result of non-native species, legislation could help or harm
many interests, including domestic and international trade and tourism, industries
CRS-14
dependent on bringing in non-native species, and those dependent on keeping them
out. Additional policy considerations include the balance between prevention and
response, overlapping jurisdiction of congressional committees, and coordination of
the many agencies and levels of government now dealing with invasive species.
CRS Products
CRS Report RL30123, Invasive Non-Native Species: Background and Issues for
Congress, by M. Lynne Corn, Eugene H. Buck, Jean Rawson, Alex Segarra, and Eric
Fischer.
Large-Scale Ecosystem Restoration and Management. In the last 25
years, the United States has devoted substantial efforts and spent billions of dollars
on restoring some large ecosystems such as the Florida Everglades, the Chesapeake
Bay, and the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Delta
(California Bay-Delta). Many of these efforts have multiple objectives and benefits,
such as improving water supply and conveyance, and managing natural resources and
watersheds. The 109th Congress is weighing restoration-related policy issues at these
and other locations; policy issues range from the allocation of natural resources (e.g.,
agricultural and municipal water), to governance and funding of restoration
initiatives, to the science supporting restoration efforts.
The 109th Congress is considering authorizing additional ecosystem restoration
efforts, including efforts for the Upper Mississippi River System, Great Lakes (also
discussed in “Transboundary Water Resources”), and coastal Louisiana (also
discussed in “Wetlands Protection and Restoration”). Ongoing restoration initiatives
also are receiving congressional direction through oversight, additional
authorizations, and appropriations. For instance, the 109th Congress is deciding
whether to authorize a second set of Everglades restoration projects as part of a
general Everglades restoration framework that was approved in 2000 and included
an initial set of projects. Additional restoration measures and appropriations for the
ongoing Chesapeake Bay initiative also are being pursued. Oversight of ecosystem
restoration also is occurring in the context of broader water resources activities, such
as California Bay-Delta water-related efforts, and efforts to coordinate Great Lakes
restoration and other water management issues.
CRS Products
CRS Report RL31975, CALFED Bay-Delta Program: Overview of Institutional
and Water Use Issues, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Betsy A. Cody.
CRS Report RL31621, Florida Everglades Restoration: Background on
Implementation and Early Lessons, by Pervaze Sheikh.
CRS Report RL32630, Upper Mississippi River System: Proposals to Restore
an Inland Waterway’s Ecosystem, by Kyna Powers and Nicole T. Carter.
Wetlands Protection and Restoration. Today there are about 105 million
acres of wetlands, of an estimated 220 million acres present when Europeans arrived
in the area that became the 48 coterminous states. Until the early 1980s, federal
policies emphasized converting wetlands to other uses, primarily agricultural
CRS-15
production. Since then, these policies have been revised, and now seek to retain
wetlands for their resource values. Presidents, starting with George H. W. Bush,
have articulated a goal of either no-net-loss or net-gain of wetlands. The current
Bush Administration has announced that wetland protection will be a second term
priority, with a goal of restoring or improving 3 million acres.
Congress has supported recent wetland protection efforts by altering or
eliminating programs that contributed to wetland destruction and by creating new
protection programs. Recent Congresses have focused on conflicts between the
rights of landowners and protection efforts because almost 75% of all wetlands are
on private lands. The 109th Congress may review federal protection efforts, such as
the permit program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under §404 of the Clean
Water Act and federal acquisition and easement programs. Congress also may
conduct oversight regarding changes in wetland acreage, including where wetlands
are being lost or gained; how different types of wetlands are affected by protection
efforts; and the effectiveness of various protection approaches and programs. Large
scale ecosystem restoration programs, such as coastal Louisiana and the Everglades,
designed both to restore existing wetlands and create additional wetlands may attract
interest. (See “Large-Scale Ecosystem Restoration and Management” above.)
CRS Products
CRS Report RS22110, Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Restoration: The
Recommended Corps Plan, by Jeffrey Zinn.
CRS Issue Brief IB97014, Wetland Issues, by Jeffrey A. Zinn and Claudia
Copeland.
Water Resources
Assessing Federal Water Resources Policy and Research.
Responsibilities for federal water resources planning, management, and development
are spread among several congressional committees, and among many federal
departments, agencies, and bureaus. Recurrent pressures on existing water supplies
(from population growth, drought, species needs, changing public views, etc.) have
fostered some interest in evaluating the federal role in water resources planning,
management, and infrastructure development. This interest has manifest itself in
several ways during the 109th Congress. Examples range from national-level
legislation to establish a new national water policy commission, a Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources water symposium, proposals for a periodic national
water resource assessments, proposals to change water resources project planning,
to site-specific authorization of multi-faceted water supply and ecosystem restoration
projects.
CRS Products
CRS Report RS20569, Water Resource Issues in the 109th Congress, by Betsy
A. Cody and H. Steven Hughes.
Army Corps of Engineers. Congress regularly authorizes and reviews
water resources projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in a Water Resources
CRS-16
Development Act (WRDA) and the annual Energy and Water Development
appropriations acts. The 109th Congress is considering WRDA legislation. A
prominent policy issue in the WRDA debate is whether to change the Corps’ project
planning and review process to include more environmental considerations, or to
limit the length and increase the predictability of the process. Authorizations of high-
profile projects, such as the navigation lock expansion and ecosystem restoration of
the Upper Mississippi River, also are the subject of some debate.
Whether policy and program changes are needed to address the Corps’ backlog
of construction projects and maintenance activities is a topic of debate in the context
of WRDA authorizations and annual agency appropriations. A recent shift by the
Administration to performance-based budgeting has resulted in the budget request
focusing funds on a smaller set of projects than in the past. Both the House and the
Senate in appropriations bills and reports provide the Corps direction on prioritizing
projects and distributing funds across the Corps’ portfolio of authorized activities.
Other Corps appropriations issues in the 109th Congress include financial
management topics, such as the agency’s reliance on reprogramming of funds across
projects and the use of multi-year contracts.
CRS Products
CRS Report RL32064, Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Activities:
Authorization and Appropriations, by Nicole T. Carter.
CRS Issue Brief IB10133, Water Resources Development Act (WRDA): Army
Corps of Engineers Issues in the 109th, coordinated by Nicole T. Carter.
Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau of Reclamation operates hundreds of
federal dams, reservoirs, and distribution facilities throughout the western United
States. As the largest wholesale water supplier (primarily to irrigation) and the
second largest hydroelectric power producer in the country, the Bureau’s facilities are
intricately involved in myriad western water resource issues. Perennial matters for
Congress involve appropriations for authorized construction and maintenance
activities and funding levels for newly authorized water reuse (Title 16) and rural
water supply projects.
Other topics of congressional debate involve project management and operations
— particularly how project operations and water contract renewals affect federally
listed threatened and endangered species, and how requirements to alter project
operations to protect such species affect long-term water users. Areas where project
operations are particularly controversial include the Klamath River basin (OR and
CA); the Trinity River basin (CA); the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers (CA),
including the Bay-Delta area where they converge; and the Middle Rio Grande area
(NM). Overarching legislation to address water issues in California (CALFED) was
enacted at the end of the 108th Congress; however, activities such as progress on
storage projects and federal spending, as well as efforts to increase pumping and
renew long-term contracts, have been the subject of congressional oversight and
judicial attention during the 109th Congress. Other areas of congressional interest are
more programmatic, such as whether the Bureau should continue to invest in water
reuse projects and whether a rural water supply program ought to be established.
(See “Rural and Municipal Water Supply” below.)
CRS-17
CRS Products
CRS Report RL31975, CALFED Bay-Delta Program: Overview of Institutional
and Water Use Issues, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Betsy A. Cody.
CRS Report RL31098, Klamath River Basin Issues: An Overview of Water Use
Conflicts, by Betsy A. Cody, Pamela Baldwin, and Eugene H. Buck.
CRS Issue Brief IB10019, Western Water Resource Issues, by Betsy A. Cody
and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
Dams. While the nation’s more than 77,000 federal and nonfederal dams
provide multiple benefits, they also pose risks. Although dam failures have been
rare, dam safety and security is a concern because failure or mis-operation of
approximately 30% of U.S. dams would threaten lives or infrastructure. Age,
construction deficiencies, inadequate maintenance, and seismic or weather events
may contribute to structural integrity issues. As state and municipal budgets remain
tight, and more dams reach the end of their projected useful lives, pressures are likely
to grow for federal funding to rehabilitate or remove nonfederal dams. Bills have
been introduced in the 109th Congress to increase federal support for activities to
rehabilitate nonfederal dams. The 109th Congress also may reauthorize
appropriations for specific dam safety programs. Security of most federal dams was
assessed after September 11, 2001; for the most part, security now competes for
agency appropriations with longer-standing concerns over safety and other operation
and maintenance activities involving federal facilities.
The 109th Congress has considered hydropower licensing reform. Operating
licenses for many hydropower facilities are due to expire, and relicensing will define
how these facilities are managed for the next 30-50 years. Within the current
licensing process, certain state and federal agencies have authority to establish
conditions as part of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses. The
109th Congress has considered bills that would alter agencies’ conditioning authority.
The Administration also has proposed changes to the Department of the Interior
regulations on its conditioning authority.
CRS Products
CRS Report RL32921, Hydropower Licenses and Alternative Licensing
Conditions in H.R. 6, 109th Congress, by Kyna Powers.
Rural and Municipal Water Supply. Increased quantity and quality
pressures on existing water supplies — due to growing population, environmental
regulation, in-stream species and ecosystem needs, water source contamination,
agricultural water demand, and changing public interests — have resulted in
heightened water use conflicts throughout the country, particularly in the West.
These factors, coupled with the severity of recent drought in much of the West, have
fostered interest in new water supply development, supply augmentation, and security
of water supplies. Historically, local, regional, or state agencies generally have been
responsible for municipal water supply, and have been wary of federal involvement
in allocating water. Small and rural communities, however, increasingly have come
to Congress for assistance with rural water supply projects, while urban communities
CRS-18
have pressed for assistance with new technologies to augment water supply, primarily
through desalination of seawater and brackish groundwater and municipal wastewater
reclamation and reuse.
One congressional response over the last two decades has been authorization for
the Bureau of Reclamation (and to a lesser extent other agencies) to construct
individual rural water supply projects and participate in desalination and water reuse
projects and research. Central questions for the 109th Congress are how these
activities mesh with the historical federal role in municipal water supply and existing
federal programs to assist communities, and whether a new rural water supply
program is needed.
CRS Products
CRS Report RL30478, Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater
Treatment Programs, by Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
CRS Issue Brief IB10019, Western Water Resource Issues, by Betsy A. Cody
and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
Transboundary Water Resources. U.S. boundary waters — water basins
and aquifers shared by the United States and Canada or Mexico — often present
contentious resource issues, including water pollution, water withdrawals, and
ecosystem restoration. International cooperation sometimes is hindered by competing
economic interests, differences in governance, and varying levels of environmental
and human health protection. In the Southwest, agricultural interests and
municipalities depend on the Rio Grande River to satisfy growing needs, but
persistent drought and Mexico’s reported failures to deliver water obligated under a
1944 Treaty appear to have caused significant economic losses to the region. In
March 2005, the United States and Mexico reached an understanding to eliminate
Mexico’s Rio Grande water debt. Past Congresses have provided significant
monetary support to the region and congressional interest is likely to continue during
the 109th Congress, as Mexico’s performance under the agreement is evaluated and
scrutinized.
Much attention also might be focused on the nation’s largest shared freshwater
resource — the Great Lakes. A concern for the 109th Congress is the potential for
water withdrawals from the Great Lakes and their effects on the environment and
surrounding population. The Council of Great Lakes Governors — a partnership of
the governors of the eight Great Lakes states and the Canadian provincial premiers
of Ontario and Quebec — recently released a revised draft agreement and a compact
between the eight Great Lakes states to create uniform water withdrawal standards;
final versions are anticipated during the 109th Congress. Some, however, have
alleged that the draft agreement and compact seriously challenge state and Canadian
sovereignty and facilitate, rather than contain, water diversions. Upon completion
of the final draft, the compact would need to be approved by each of the eight state
legislatures, as well as the Congress.
CRS-19
CRS Products
CRS Report RL32956, Great Lakes Water Withdrawals: Legal and Policy
Issues, by Stephen R. Viña and Pervaze Sheikh.
CRS Report RS22085, The United States — Mexico Dispute over the Waters of
the Lower Rio Grande River, by Stephen R. Viña.
Water Use Challenges and River Management. The nation’s surface
water and groundwater are used for multiple, sometimes competing, purposes.
Existing arrangements for water use are being challenged by Indian water rights
claims, drought conservation and preparedness measures, and judicial decisions
affecting water allocation (e.g., decisions requiring management changes to support
federally-listed threatened and endangered species). As these demands are placed on
available water supplies, a central question in management is increasingly how to
balance or prioritize uses, while satisfying existing water rights and contractual
obligations, especially during drought.
River and reservoir management, in particular, are receiving congressional and
public scrutiny during the 109th Congress. Rivers provide not only economic benefits
— water supply for agriculture and municipalities, navigation, and flood protection
— but also recreational opportunities and natural habitat. In many cases, Bureau of
Reclamation or Army Corps of Engineers facilities and their operation are central to
debates over multi-purpose rivers. Water resources management by federal agencies
remains controversial on the Middle Rio Grande, Colorado, Klamath, Columbia,
Snake, Mississippi, and Missouri Rivers and is frequently challenged in the courts.
In contrast, groundwater management has been left primarily to states. The federal
role in groundwater monitoring and studies through agencies such as the U.S.
Geological Survey, nonetheless, can be controversial. The 109th Congress has
discussed federal involvement in surface water issues and some groundwater
management topics through oversight, legislative direction, authorizing legislation,
and appropriations.
CRS Products
CRS Report RS20569, Water Resource Issues in the 109th Congress, by Betsy
A. Cody and H. Steven Hughes.
Other
Arctic Oil, Arctic Refuge (ANWR). The future of the rich biological
resources, wilderness values, and energy potential of northeastern Alaska has been
debated in Congress for more than 40 years. The question for Congress is whether
to open a portion of what is now the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to
allow the development of potentially the richest onshore source of oil remaining in
the United States, and if so under what restrictions. Alternatively, Congress might
choose to further protect the refuge’s biological and wilderness resources through
statutory wilderness designation, or to maintain the current status of the area. Under
current law, unless Congress chooses to act, the entire refuge will remain closed to
development under provisions of the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act. The 109th Congress rejected the inclusion of ANWR development
CRS-20
legislation in omnibus energy legislation. The most commonly discussed scenario
for the remainder of the 109th Congress is incorporation of an ANWR development
title in a budget reconciliation package, which could help avoid a filibuster by
opponents in the Senate.
CRS Products
CRS Issue Brief IB10136, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR):
Controversies for the 109th Congress, by M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RL31278, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Background and Issues,
coordinated by M. Lynne Corn.
Energy and Mineral Resources on Federal Lands. A controversial
question is whether to increase availability of federal lands for energy and mineral
development. Comprehensive energy legislation enacted during the 109th Congress
affects energy development on federal lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
Provisions in the legislation streamline the permitting process for onshore oil and gas
development and offer royalty incentives for offshore oil and gas development.
Access to areas now off-limits is controversial. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates
that significant oil and gas resources exist below some federal lands now off-limits
to energy development, particularly in the Rocky Mountain region. The industry
contends that entry into these areas is necessary to ensure future domestic oil and gas
supplies. Opponents maintain that there are environmental costs, and the United
States could meet its energy needs through increased exploration elsewhere and
energy conservation. BLM recently implemented new management strategies
intended to remove impediments and streamline the permitting process for
developing resources on federal lands in general. Another provision in the
comprehensive energy legislation requires a study of the impact on water resources
of coal bed methane production.
The OCS contains significant energy resources. The U.S. Gulf of Mexico is
identified by the Energy Information Administration as the most promising region
for new additions to U.S. oil reserves. The Minerals Management Service projects
Gulf oil production could be as high as 2.25 million barrels per day by 2011, 50%
higher than current production. Natural gas production is projected to reach 13 billion
cubic feet per day by 2011, more than twice its current level. These forecasts reflect
retaining the current leasing moratoria for certain areas, although the industry is
interested in accessing areas under moratoria. The enacted energy legislation
contains a provision for a comprehensive inventory of OCS oil and natural gas
resources, including language that would explain how the moratoria, among other
things, impede the development of OCS oil and gas. The moratoria have been
imposed in response to economic and environmental concerns over drilling near
coastal communities. Another debate is whether, and how, to create a federal
authority to administer future use of the OCS for renewable energy production.
There generally is bipartisan interest in reforming the General Mining Law of
1872, which likely would include some form of royalty paid to the U.S. Treasury.
The mining industry also is interested in removing alleged permitting delays, while
some environment groups press for stricter environmental regulations.
CRS-21
CRS Products
CRS Report RL32315, Oil and Gas Exploration and Development on Public
Lands, by Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RL31521, Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas: Energy Security
and Other Major Issues, by Marc Humphries.
Indian Lands and Resources. American Indian reservations (trust and
non-trust lands), off-reservation trust lands, and Alaska Native corporation (non-
trust) lands cover more than 116 million acres (5%) of the United States — about 71
million acres in the lower 48 states and about 45 million acres in Alaska. Indian
tribes and individuals also have interests in non-Indian lands, waters, and other
natural resources, as subjects of legal rights, objects of legal claims, culturally
important areas, or economic resources.
On Indian trust lands (55 million acres), tribes have sought to increase their
autonomy to develop energy resources by reducing the trust oversight role of the
Department of the Interior. The enacted omnibus energy legislation included
provisions that allow energy-related leases and business agreements based on tribal
rather than federal regulations, once the Secretary of the Interior has approved a tribal
energy resource agreement governing such tribal regulations. The provisions raised
fears that tribes might avoid federal environmental reviews and might lose federal
trust protections against losses. The enacted legislation contained provisions
intended to retain environmental requirements and a qualified level of trust
protection.
Among significant topics for non-Indian areas, other than land claims, are rights
to water and to wildlife resources. Indian tribes have asserted water rights claims in
a number of western states, and many tribes are participating in negotiations or
adjudications with states, local governments, and other water users. The 109th
Congress may be asked to consider Arizona and New Mexico tribal water rights
claims, if settlements are reached. Management of fish and wildlife on non-Indian
lands and waters — for instance, salmon and other fish in the Klamath and Trinity
river basins (CA and OR), marine mammals in the north Pacific, or caribou in
ANWR — also has given rise to water rights, fishing, and development controversies
that Congress has been asked to address. Another tribal issue on non-Indian lands
concerns Indian sacred sites on federal lands. Tribes have long promoted legislation
to protect sacred sites and give tribes a role in their management, but federal land
managers and private companies have voiced fears that such a management role
might enable tribes to restrict statutory uses, such as development or recreation.
CRS Products
CRS Report RS22056, Major Indian Issues in the 109th Congress, by Roger
Walke.
CRS Issue Brief IB10019, Western Water Resource Issues, by Betsy A. Cody
and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS-22
Natural Disaster Mitigation. Efforts have accelerated in recent years to save
lives and prevent property losses from natural disasters. Local land use plans,
particularly in districts struck by multiple floods (referred to as repetitive loss areas),
have been and continue to be revised. Development and construction patterns of the
past have been altered, resulting in the relocation or elevation of homes and
businesses to prevent flood damages. Many buildings susceptible to earthquake
damage have been reinforced (retrofitted) to reduce the likelihood of damage or loss
of life or injury. Homeowners in rural areas at risk from wildfires have been
encouraged or required to make landscaping or construction changes to minimize
such risks. Hurricane damages have been reduced in some coastal areas through
adoption and enforcement of strict building code provisions.
These and other hazard mitigation actions may help achieve desired goals. At
the same time, pressures remain to develop areas and use private property
notwithstanding their disaster risk. As a result, considerable debate has developed
on specific policies and the federal role in such actions. Areas of congressional
debate and related questions include the following.
! The federal government historically has provided disaster assistance
after state and local governments are overwhelmed by natural
disasters. To what extent does federal disaster relief reduce
community and individual incentives to undertake mitigation?
! The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) mandates that
participating property owners and communities undertake specified
mitigative actions. What impact will implementation of the
Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004
(P.L. 108-264) have on development patterns?
! The federal government provides funds for hazard mitigation
activities, including updating and modernizing flood zone maps.
(See “Natural Hazards and Mapping Data Management” above.)
Are current tools sufficient to help Congress establish priorities and
determine the cost effectiveness of federal spending for these
activities?
CRS Products
CRS Report RL32972, Federal Flood Insurance: The Repetitive Loss Problem,
by Rawle O. King.
Private Land Conservation. Natural resource questions related to private
lands that attract congressional attention are many and varied. Some center on the
effects of private land uses on natural resources, especially in rural areas.
Agricultural production — including crop and livestock production — occupies
about 41% of land in the lower 48 states, according to the National Agricultural
Statistics Service of the Department of Agriculture (USDA). It can contribute to
pesticide and nutrient runoff, soil erosion, air pollution, and loss of wildlife habitat.
USDA administers many voluntary programs which provide technical assistance,
funding, education, and research to help farmers address these problems. Some
programs pay producers to retire lands that have high resource values, such as
CRS-23
wetlands, while other programs help producers grow crops in ways that protect
resources and environmental conditions. About 40 million acres of land (10% of all
cropland) is retired through federal conservation programs, using multi-year rental
agreements or easements. USDA states that its programs have reduced soil erosion
and increased wetland area. However, the effect of its programs on nutrient and
pesticide runoff and other problems has not been well measured. Many of these
conservation programs expire in FY2007, and the 109th Congress is discussing them
as it starts to consider alternative policies for the next farm bill.
Another set of resource questions is associated with development as it spreads
from established urban centers into less developed areas, including farm land. This
development can contribute to declines in habitat and environmental quality. Growth
is largely managed by local and state governments, but Congress could limit, guide,
or foster growth through federal programs to build roads, sewer and water lines, and
public facilities. Growth also could be addressed in measures that designate sites or
provide guidance for federal projects or facilities.
A third set of resource questions can occur where private and public ownership
abut. At these locations, land use and resource protection goals may be incompatible,
leading to conflict over such topics as predator and weed control, and habitat for
important species. At the same time, private landowners often contend that public
land management is inconsistent and unresponsive to their concerns. Congress has
discussed some of these topics, largely on a case-by-case basis, but may look for
more systematic responses. Currently, few federal programs apply in the same way
to both public and private lands.
CRS Products
CRS Report RS20011, Managing Regional Growth: Is There a Role for
Congress?, by Jeffrey A. Zinn.
CRS Issue Brief IB96030, Soil and Water Conservation Issues, by Jeffrey A.
Zinn.