Inland Waterways: Recent Proposals and Issues for Congress

Charles V. Stern
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Inland waterways are a significant part of the nation’s transportation system. Because of the national economic benefits of maritime transport, the federal government has invested in navigation infrastructure for two centuries. Commercial barge shippers and other waterway users receive significant support through federal funding for operational costs, capital expenditures, and major rehabilitation on inland waterways. Since the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, expenditures for construction and major rehabilitation projects on inland waterways have been cost-shared on a 50/50 basis between the federal government and commercial users through the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF). Operations and maintenance costs for inland waterways (which typically exceed construction and major rehabilitation costs) are a 100% federal responsibility.

Future financing for the inland waterway system is uncertain. The IWTF is supported by a $0.20 per gallon tax on commercial barge fuel, but its balance has declined significantly since 2005 due to a combination of increased appropriations, cost overruns, and decreased revenues. Without changes to the current financing system, IWTF spending is likely to be limited.

The Obama Administration recommends replacing the fuel tax with user fees that would increase revenues and potentially allow for more spending on inland waterways projects. Similarly to prior administrations, the Obama Administration submitted proposals to raise inland waterways user fees in each year since FY2010. Congress and industry interests have rejected these proposals. In 2010, the Inland Waterways Users Board (IWUB), a federal advisory committee advising the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on inland waterways, endorsed an alternative proposal that is supported by many barge industry interests. The proposal would increase the fuel tax by $0.06-$0.09 per gallon, but would require the federal government to cover all project costs for dams and rehabilitation that are currently shared with the IWTF. To date, no major changes to the inland waterway financing system have been enacted.

The user industry (including the barge industry and agricultural groups) argues that its recommended changes are necessary to shore up the trust fund, improve deteriorating infrastructure, and distribute costs equitably among beneficiaries (e.g., more funding for dams by federal taxpayer beneficiaries). The Obama Administration agrees that infrastructure upgrades are needed, but argues against shifting these costs to the federal government and instead proposes higher user fees. Some taxpayer and environmental groups favor increasing nonfederal costs not just for construction, but also for operation and maintenance expenses that are not cost-shared.

Changes to inland waterways financing are proposed in the 113th Congress. S. 601, the Water Resources Development Act of 2013, as passed by the Senate, would authorize changes to the project delivery process, alter the cost-sharing requirements for some inland waterways projects, and exempt from IWTF cost-sharing requirements one project (the Olmsted Project), which has required the majority of IWTF appropriations in recent years. S. 601 would make no changes to the fuel tax. Two other bills, S. 407 and H.R. 1149, would enact much of the aforementioned user proposal, with increases to the fuel tax of $0.09 and $0.06, respectively. As in recent years, the Administration’s FY2014 budget proposed a new, unspecified user fee expected for inland waterways; this proposal has been rejected in the past. In considering inland waterways legislation, Congress may consider the appropriate cost share between the federal government and waterway users for various inland waterways costs, the appropriate type of user fee to fund the nonfederal share, and preferred funding levels for inland waterways.


Date of Report: August 5, 2013
Number of Pages: 30
Order Number: R41430
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41430.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Ocean Acidification

Harold F. Upton
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Peter Folger
Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources Policy

With increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, the extent of effects on the ocean and marine resources is an increasing concern. One aspect of this issue is the ongoing process (known as ocean acidification) whereby seawater becomes less alkaline as more CO2 dissolves in it, causing hydrogen ion concentration in seawater to increase. Scientists are concerned that increasing hydrogen ion concentration could reduce growth or even cause death of shell-forming animals (e.g., corals, mollusks, and certain planktonic organisms) as well as disrupt marine food webs and the reproductive physiology of certain species. While not yet fully understood, the ecological and economic consequences of ocean acidification could be substantial.

Scientists are concerned that increasing hydrogen ion concentration in seawater could alter biogeochemical cycles, disrupt physiological processes of marine organisms, and damage marine ecosystems. This report does not discuss the effects of increasing thermal stress to marine organisms and ecosystems (e.g., coral bleaching) related to climate change. However, marine ecosystems are likely to be affected by the synergistic effects of factors involved in both thermal and chemical processes.

Congress is beginning to focus attention on better understanding ocean acidification and determining how this concern might be addressed. In the 111th Congress, the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act of 2009 (Title XII, Subtitle D, of P.L. 111-11) directed the Secretary of Commerce to establish an ocean acidification program within NOAA, established an interagency committee to develop an ocean acidification research and monitoring plan, and authorized appropriations through FY2012 for NOAA and the National Science Foundation. The only bill related to ocean acidification that has been introduced during the 113th Congress is the Coral Reef Conservation Act Amendments of 2013 (S. 839). S. 839 would include ocean acidification in the criteria used to evaluate project proposals for studying threats to coral reefs and developing responses to coral reef losses. On July 30, 2013, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation ordered S. 839 to be reported.


Date of Report: August 7, 2013
Number of Pages: 17
Order Number: R40143
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R40143.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: Brief Overview of the President’s FY2014 Appropriations Request

Carol Hardy Vincent
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes funding for most of the Department of the Interior (DOI) and for agencies within other departments—including the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the Indian Health Service within the Department of Health and Human Services. It also provides funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), arts and cultural agencies, and numerous other entities.

The President’s FY2014 discretionary appropriations request contained $30.03 billion for approximately 30 agencies and entities typically funded in the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations law. For the 10 major DOI agencies in Title I of the bill, the request was $10.83 billion, or 36% of the total. For EPA, funded by Title II of the bill, the request was $8.15 billion, or 27% of the total. For about 20 agencies and other entities typically funded in Title III of the bill, the President requested $11.04 billion, or 37% of the total.

Direct comparisons between FY2014 discretionary appropriations requested by the President and amounts appropriated for FY2013 for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies are difficult. This is primarily because complete information on FY2013 budgetary resources affected by the President’s March 1, 2013, sequester order and the effects of a 0.2% across-the-board rescission (under P.L. 113-6) is not readily available. However, the President’s FY2014 request can be compared with FY2012 enacted appropriations. The total request would be an overall increase of $803.1 million (2.7%) above the $29.23 billion appropriated for FY2012. Together, DOI agencies would increase by $534.2 million (5.2%), EPA would decrease by $296.4 million (3.5%), and related agencies would increase by $565.2 million (5.4%).

Other comparisons can be made between the President’s FY2014 request and the FY2013 appropriations excluding the sequester and the across-the-board rescission. The President’s FY2014 request was $145.0 million (0.5%) higher than the pre-sequester/pre-rescission FY2013 appropriation of $29.89 billion prior to the reductions. While it was $376.1 million (3.6%) higher for DOI agencies, it was $189.9 million (2.3%) lower for EPA, and $41.2 million (0.4%) lower for related agencies. Overall, the FY2014 request was $1.30 billion (4.1%) less than the FY2013 pre-sequester/pre-rescission appropriation of $31.33 billion, which included $1.44 billion in supplemental funding for disaster relief (P.L. 113-2). In the absence of complete information on FY2013 appropriations including the sequester and the rescission, CRS is not able to calculate the amount or percent of change under the President’s request from final FY2013 appropriations.

For DOI agencies, it is possible to compare the President’s FY2014 request with FY2013 appropriations reflecting the sequester and the across-the-board rescission. These reductions are reflected in DOI operating plans which are readily available to the public. The FY2014 request of $10.83 billion for DOI agencies would be an increase of $107.6 million (1.0%) above the FY2013 post-sequester/post-rescission level of $10.73 billion (including supplemental funding).

No bill providing regular appropriations for FY2014 for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies has been introduced in the House or Senate (as of August 1, 2013). On July 31, 2013, the House Appropriations Committee began, but did not conclude, a markup of a draft FY2014 bill. The markup focused on the draft text and accompanying draft report approved on July 23, 2013, by the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. Also, on August 1, 2013, the leaders of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies released a draft bill for FY2014 with an accompanying explanatory statement.


Date of Report: August 6, 2013
Number of Pages: 17
Order Number: R43142
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R43142.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Seminole Rock Deference: Court Treatment of Agency Interpretation of Ambiguous Regulations

Daniel T. Shedd
Legislative Attorney

Agencies promulgate rules to implement statutorily authorized regulatory programs. These rules, although established by an administrative agency, maintain the force and effect of law. To be able to promulgate rules, an agency must be granted by Congress the power to do so, either explicitly or implicitly, through statute. To control the process by which agencies create these rules, Congress has enacted statutes, such as the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), that dictate what procedures an agency must follow to establish a final, legally binding rule.

Often, the organic statute that allows an agency to implement a program through rulemaking may be ambiguous. The agency must then interpret the ambiguous terms of the statute in order to establish the regulatory program. The Supreme Court, in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, established the Chevron test, which requires courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute if the agency’s interpretation is reasonable. However, what happens if an agency’s regulation is ambiguous? The Supreme Court ruled in Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., back in 1945, that a court must accept an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations unless it is “plainly erroneous.”

Since the Court handed down the Seminole Rock decision, the Court has outlined certain exceptions to the rule. Courts will not defer to an agency’s interpretation if the regulation itself is clear, if the agency suddenly changes its interpretation, or if the agency’s regulation merely “parrots” the statutory language. Finally, courts generally prevent agencies from levying punitive fines against regulated entities if the regulated party could not have reasonably known how the agency planned to interpret the regulation.

Agency regulations provide the backbone of a large number of federal programs. It is important to understand how courts treat an agency’s promulgated regulations in order to understand how a rule may be applied to the public and regulated entities. This report discusses how courts currently treat an agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations and discusses the arguments raised in the recent Supreme Court opinion from Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, in which some members of the Court indicated a willingness to reconsider Seminole Rock deference. The report also discusses the justifications for and arguments against maintaining this judicial deference. .


Date of Report: July 16, 2013
Number of Pages: 13
Order Number: R43153
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R43153.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000

Katie Hoover
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Many counties are compensated for the tax-exempt status of federal lands. Counties with national forest lands and with certain Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands have historically received a percentage of agency revenues, primarily from timber sales. However, timber sales have declined substantially—by more than 90% in some areas. Thus, Congress enacted the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRS; P.L. 106-393) as a temporary, optional program of payments based on historic, rather than current, revenues.

Authorization for SRS payments originally expired at the end of FY2006, but through several reauthorizations the program was extended through FY2012. Congressional debates over reauthorization considered the basis and level of compensation (historical, tax equivalency, etc.); the source of funds (receipts, a new tax or revenue source, etc.); the authorized and required uses of the payments; interaction with other compensation programs (notably Payments in Lieu of Taxes); and the duration of any changes (temporary or permanent). In addition, legislation with mandatory spending, such as SRS reauthorization, raises policy questions about increasing the deficit; current budget rules to restrain deficit spending typically impose a procedural barrier to such legislation, generally requiring offsets by additional receipts or reductions in other mandatory spending.

In 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (P.L. 110-343) enacted a four-year extension to SRS authorization through FY2011, with declining payments, a modified formula, and transition payments for certain areas. In 2012, Congress enacted a one-year extension through FY2012, and amended the program by slowing the decline in payment levels and tightening requirements that counties select a payment option promptly (P.L. 112-141).

Section 302 of the Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25, as amended by P.L. 112-240) requires the President to order a sequester, or cancellation, of budgetary resources for FY2013. The sequester order took effect on March 1, 2013, and affected the SRS payment for FY2012, although BLM and Forest Service implemented the order differently from each other.

With the expiration of SRS at the end of FY2012, county compensation is again the subject of congressional debates. County payments are set to return to a revenue-based system for FY2013, and are likely to be significantly lower than the previous years’ payments. However, payments for FY2013 have not yet been made, and Congress may consider extending SRS (with or without modifications and with or without addressing the sequester order), implementing other legislative proposals to address the county payments, or taking no action. No action would continue the revenue-based system that took effect upon the program’s expiration. Discussion in the 113th Congress has focused on many of the same issues that were debated in 2006-2008 and again in 2012. On June 18, 2013, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee ordered to be reported S. 783, the Helium Stewardship Act of 2013, which includes a one-year extension of SRS. On July 31, 2013, the House Committee on Natural Resources ordered to be reported H.R. 1526, the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act, which includes a temporary extension of SRS.


Date of Report: August 5, 2013
Number of Pages: 23
Order Number: R41303
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41303.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.