Firearms at Army Corps Water Resources Projects: Proposed Legislation and Issues for Congress

Nicole T. Carter
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

As part of its civil works mission, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers manages water resource
projects. Areas behind and below Corps dams, and Corps navigation locks and their pools, are
popular recreation sites, attracting 370 million visits annually. Corps projects include some of the
most densely used federal recreation sites. Currently, 36 C.F.R. Section 327 sets out the
regulations for public use of Corps projects. Section 327.13 generally prohibits possession of
loaded firearms by private (i.e., non-law enforcement) individuals at Corps-administered projects
unless they are being used for hunting at designated sites (with devices required to be unloaded
while transported to and from the sites) or at authorized shooting ranges. The regulation applies at
projects regardless of their location in states allowing open or concealed carry of loaded firearms.

Proposed legislation—H.R. 2046, the Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act; Section 113 of H.R.
2609, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of FY2014
(which are all substantively similar); Section 103 of S. 1335, the Sportsmen’s Act; and an
amendment proposed, but not adopted, during Senate floor consideration of S. 601, the Water
Resources Development Act—would bar the Secretary of the Army from promulgating or
enforcing regulations that prohibit individuals from possessing firearms (including assembled or
functional firearms) at Corps projects. The proposed language would require firearms possession
to comply with state law. Supporters see it as addressing a patchwork of regulations restricting
firearms on federal lands, as providing consistency for open and concealed firearms possession
within a state, and as facilitating recreational shooting and self-defense. They argue that
enactment would result in Corps policies consistent with Section 512 of P.L. 111-24, which made
it legal for individuals to possess firearms at National Park Service (NPS) and National Wildlife
Refuge System (NWRS) units of the Department of the Interior (DOI). Other stakeholders are
concerned that the legislation as proposed may produce unintended public safety and
infrastructure security issues.

The issue for Congress is not only possession and use of loaded firearms but also maintaining
public safety and infrastructure security at Corps projects.

• Critical facilities security: Proposed legislation does not explicitly provide authority to restrict firearms at Corps facilities (e.g., dams) or in specifically designated areas.
• Public safety and law enforcement: No armed federal law enforcement officers are commissioned for public safety and security purposes at Corps projects. Corps rangers issue citations for regulatory violations and are not allowed to carry firearms. Most law enforcement is provided by local and state personnel.

A safety, security, and cost and benefit assessment related to altering firearms possession and use
at Corps projects has not been performed. DOI’s Bureau of Reclamation is faced with similar
safety and security issues at its water resource projects. It allows possession of firearms on
Reclamation lands and waterbodies (e.g., reservoirs behind dams) when such possession complies
with federal, state, and local law; hunting is similarly allowed unless an area has been closed for
public use or has been designated as a special use area. Firearms are restricted at Reclamation
facilities (e.g., dams and buildings). DOI and Reclamation use multiple authorities and
mechanisms to provide for armed and unarmed law enforcement and public safety and security.


Date of Report: September 4, 2013
Number of Pages: 11
Order Number: R42602
Price: $29.95


To Order:

R42602.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.

Army Corps Supplemental Appropriations: Recent History, Trends, and Policy Issues

Charles V. Stern
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Nicole T. Carter
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Under its civil works program, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plans, builds, operates, and maintains a wide range of water resource facilities. The Corps also plays a prominent role in responding to domestic natural disasters, in particular riverine and coastal flooding. The Corps can assist in flood fighting at the discretion of its Chief of Engineers in order to protect life and property, principally when state resources are overwhelmed. The Corps is also authorized to protect and repair its own facilities in the event of flooding, and to operate a program, the Rehabilitation and Inspection Program (RIP), that funds the repair of participating nonfederal flood control works (e.g., levees, dams, dunes) damaged by flooding events. Additionally, the Corps undertakes a variety of other activities at the request of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under the National Response Framework, which are outside the scope of this report.

In recent years several natural disasters have required Corps response and repair activities with costs running into the billions. Congress provided most of these funds through supplemental appropriations. From 1987 to 2013, Congress appropriated $32.2 billion in supplemental funding to the Corps. Of this funding, $30.8 billion came through supplemental appropriations acts passed between 2003 and 2013. This funding was more than half of the amount that was provided to the Corps in regular appropriations over this same period ($55 billion).

Of the $30.8 billion, $27.5 billion (89%) was for responding to flooding and other natural disasters, with the majority of this funding related to Hurricane Katrina and the 2005 storm season ($16 billion) and, more recently, Hurricane Sandy’s landfall in 2012 ($5.3 billion). In addition to the disaster funding, Congress provided the Corps with non-disaster related supplemental funds, including $4.6 billion under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5) and $39 million for facility security and other expenditures.

Corps natural disaster supplemental appropriations have largely been funded through two Corps accounts: Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE; i.e., flood fighting, repairs to damaged nonfederal flood control projects) and Operations and Maintenance (O&M; i.e., repairs to Corps projects). Nonfederal cost-sharing for FCCE and O&M typically has not been required with some exceptions. Congress also has provided some funding for other Corps accounts, such as Construction and Mississippi Rivers and Tributaries. Local cost-sharing requirements for construction funding in particular have varied. Hurricane Katrina funding generally required local cost-sharing for construction investments, while funding to complete “ongoing” construction (but not new construction) after Hurricane Sandy received a waiver from local cost-sharing requirements.

When faced with natural disaster response costs and proposed supplemental expenditures, Congress may consider whether to provide these funds to the Corps and, if so, how much funding to include and for which Corps accounts and activities. In providing supplemental funding, Congress also may consider associated issues such as whether to maintain standard nonfederal cost-sharing requirements, whether to include reporting and transparency requirements for this funding, and what type of flood damage reduction efforts to support.


Date of Report: September 19, 2013
Number of Pages: 17
Order Number: R42841
Price: $29.95


To Order:

R42841.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.

The Oregon & California Railroad Lands (O&C Lands): Issues for Congress

Katie Hoover
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

The Oregon and California Railroad (O&C) lands consist of 2.6 million acres of timberland in western Oregon. The majority of these lands (2.5 million acres) were originally granted to the Oregon & California Railroad Company in 1866 for constructing approximately 300 miles of the Oregon portion of a railroad from Portland, OR, to Sacramento, CA. However, in 1915 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the railroad violated the terms of the grant. The disposition of these lands was eventually resolved with the O&C Act of 1937, which revested the lands back into federal ownership to be managed by the Department of the Interior “for permanent forest production” with the purpose to provide a supply of timber, protect watersheds, provide recreational opportunities, and contribute to the economic stability of the local communities. The O&C Act of 1937 established a revenue-sharing system with the 18 counties in Oregon that contain O&C lands. Currently at issue for Congress are payments to the counties that contain O&C land, the sequestration of the FY2012 payment, and the applicability of various land management and environmental laws.

The O&C lands are managed under the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). The NWFP is a series of federal policies and forest management direction adopted in the 1990s. The NWFP covers 24 million acres of public land, including 19 national forests managed by the Forest Service and 7 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) districts in California, Oregon, and Washington. The O&C lands make up 11% of the NWFP management area by acreage, and 37% of Oregon’s NWFP management area by acreage.

The revenue sharing system established under the 1937 O&C Act was to compensate for the loss of property tax revenue when the O&C lands were revested back to the federal government. When timber sales and revenues began to decline in the Pacific Northwest in the 1990s, Congress established alternative compensation systems: first the safety net payments specifically for the Pacific Northwest, then the broader Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRS; P.L. 106-393, as amended). After several reauthorizations and extensions, SRS expired after the FY2012 payment. Congress again is considering extending SRS. Options include extending the SRS with or without modifications, reverting back to the revenue-sharing payment system, or other legislative proposals to address O&C payments.

Legislation has been introduced in the 113th Congress to address the management of the O&C lands and federal payment programs to the O&C counties. H.R. 1526 would transfer management authority of much of the O&C lands to a governor-appointed panel and establish a trust with fiduciary responsibility to the counties, among other provisions related to the management and applicability of federal environmental laws. H.R. 1526 would also extend SRS for one year at the FY2010 payment level. S. 783 would reauthorize SRS for one year at 95% of the FY2012 payment level.

This report provides background information about the O&C lands and discusses federal payments made to the 18 counties in Oregon. This report then discusses some of the major issues before Congress related to the management of the O&C lands.


Date of Report: September 13, 2013
Number of Pages: 18
Order Number: R42951
Price: $29.95


To Order:
 
R42951.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.

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

Pervaze A. Sheikh
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Charles V. Stern
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Amanda Marie Levin
Research Associate

The Lake Tahoe Basin (Basin) straddles the California-Nevada border and includes Lake Tahoe. The Basin is regarded for its beauty, wildlife diversity, clear waters, and recreation. Logging and mining stimulated development in the Basin beginning in the 1850s. Development, especially urban development, has affected the Basin’s ecosystem, leading to a decline in the water quality of Lake Tahoe, tree mortality, heightened wildfire risk, and population declines in fish and wildlife species.

Restoration of the Tahoe Basin began in 1969 under the Bi-State Compact between California and Nevada. The Compact authorized the creation of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). TRPA oversees restoration efforts in the Tahoe Basin and monitors environmental progress, among other things. TRPA also created the Regional Plan, which is a framework for restoration. The Plan has specific goals for restoration, and focuses on improving water quality, decreasing the number of invasive species, maintaining populations and habitats of sensitive and listed species, and reducing wildfire risk in the surrounding forests. The implementation and funding of the Plan is done by state, federal, local, and private stakeholders.

The federal government is involved in the restoration of the Basin due to its land holdings and funding for restoration. Federal agencies coordinate their efforts with other stakeholders through the Lake Tahoe Federal Interagency Partnership. In total, various entities have contributed over $1.7 billion to fund 600 projects since 1997. This includes approximately $554.5 million in federal funds. An additional $2.5 billion has been requested from stakeholders to fund an additional 700 projects from 2008 to 2018. The federal government has been asked to contribute $645 million of this newly planned spending. Currently, federal support for restoration projects has been authorized under the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-506) and the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA; P.L. 105-263).

Views on the progress of restoration in the Basin have been mixed. Some local groups question whether funds have been efficiently spent, whereas others contend that progress has been significant in restoring the Basin ecosystem. These might change due to a recent update of the Regional Plan. This update appears to support sustainable development in the Basin, which has caused some environmental groups to question whether progress in restoring the Basin might be stalled. Others, however, contend that sustainable development and economic well-being of the region is necessary for ecosystem restoration in the long term. Another restoration issue is funding. Mandatory federal funding provided under SNPLMA is exhausted, causing some to question whether federal funding will remain at consistent levels or decline.

The 113th Congress is attempting to address some of these issues in proposed legislation. S. 1451 would reauthorize $415 million for restoration for 10 fiscal years from the year enacted; promote federal support for scientific work in the Basin, including studies on the effects of climate change on the ecosystem; and authorize a program to address aquatic invasive species. Congress might also conduct oversight to understand the progress of restoration and provide input on current controversies concerning the balance between development and the environment in the Basin.


Date of Report: September 13, 2013
Number of Pages: 35
Order Number: R43224
Price: $29.95

To Order:
R43224.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.