Nicole T. Carter
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
John Frittelli
Specialist in Transportation Policy
Linda Luther
Analyst in Environmental Policy
Charles V. Stern
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
H.R. 3080, Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013 (WRRDA 2013)
as passed by the House, and S. 601, Water Resources Development Act of
2013 (WRDA 2013) as passed by the Senate, are both omnibus authorization
legislation focused primarily on water resources development activities
and practices of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The two bills
address many similar issues, but often propose different approaches.
Authorizing and Deauthorizing Projects. H.R. 3080 would authorize a fixed
set of 23 Corps projects (total cost of $13.0 billion) and 2 cost
modifications to previously authorized projects. S. 601 would authorize
projects or modifications with a completed Chief Report transmitted
to Congress before enactment if carried out according to their reports and
plan; 22 projects (total cost of $12.4 billion) have had their Chief’s
Reports transmitted to Congress as of October 2013; another 7 projects
(total cost of $12.8 billion) are awaiting transmission of completed
Chief’s Reports. For future authorizations, H.R. 3080 would have the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)(ASA) submit an annual
“Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development” with qualifying
studies proposed by nonfederal interests, completed feasibility reports,
and modifications to projects for congressional consideration. For three years
after enactment, S. 601 would allow the ASA to initiate new studies and
proceed with project cost modifications if an appropriations or other act
provides amounts to the study or project. H.R. 3080 would deauthorize $12
billion of pre-WRDA 2007 projects within 270 days of enactment; S. 601
would establish a commission to identify, within four years, projects to
deauthorize.
Accelerating Studies and Environmental Streamlining. Both bills propose
provisions to encourage completion of Corps studies within three years and
intended to streamline compliance with applicable environmental laws
including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Expanding Nonfederal Roles in Project Delivery and Financing. Both bills
would encourage the expansion of nonfederal opportunities in delivering
water resources projects through changes to the provisions for in-kind
crediting for nonfederal work and expanding authorities for nonfederal
contributions and nonfederal project management and financing. S. 601 also
proposes encouraging nonfederal partnerships, including private
investment, by authorizing a program for loans and loan guarantees for
certain flood control and public water supply projects.
Investing in Navigation. Both bills attempt to increase spending from the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF), but differ in the priorities and use
of HMTF funds. Both bills would authorize changes to the inland waterway
project delivery and alter cost-sharing for Olmsted Locks and Dam; neither
bill would enact changes to inland waterway revenues.
Reducing Flood Risks. S. 601 would authorize a new national levee safety
program to assist in the development of state levee safety programs and
expand the role of the Corps in levee rehabilitation and levee
certification. H.R. 3080 would make more limited amendments to flood risk
management authorities.
Addressing Other Issues. H.R. 3080 would prohibit programs or actions
authorized by H.R. 3080 to be used for furthering implementation of
Executive Order 13547 related to coastal and marine spatial planning. S.
601 would create a National Endowment for the Oceans. S. 601 would amend
the applicability and scope of the oil spill prevention, control, and countermeasure
rules related to oil storage.
Date of Report: November 6, 2013
Number of Pages: 27
Order Number: R43298
Price: $29.95
To Order:
R43298 .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
Kristina Alexander
Legislative Attorney
Sandra L. Johnson
Information Research Specialist
Katie Hoover
Analyst in Natural Resource Policy
The Wilderness Act of 1964 established the National Wilderness Preservation
System and directed that only Congress can designate federal lands as part
of the system. Free-standing bills to designate wilderness areas are
typically introduced and considered in each Congress; such bills are not
amendments to the Wilderness Act, but typically refer to the act for management
guidance and sometimes include special provisions. Numerous wilderness
bills were introduced in the 112th Congress, but it was the first Congress since 1966 that did not add to
the wilderness system. The 112th Congress was the first in decades not to designate additional
wilderness; the only wilderness law that was enacted reduced the size of a
wilderness area. Many bills to add to the wilderness system have been
introduced in the 113th Congress.
Wilderness designation can be controversial. The designation generally
prohibits commercial activities, motorized access, and human
infrastructure from wilderness areas; however, there are several
exceptions to this general rule. Advocates propose wilderness designations to
preserve the generally undeveloped conditions of the areas. Opponents see
such designations as preventing certain uses and potential economic
development in rural areas where such opportunities are relatively
limited.
Most bills direct management of designated wilderness in accordance with the Wilderness
Act. However, proposed legislation also often seeks a compromise among
interests by allowing other activities in the area. Pre-existing uses or
conditions are often allowed to continue, sometimes temporarily, with
nonconforming uses to be halted and/or nonconforming conditions to be rectified.
More commonly, the authority is permanent, with limited access permitted for
specific areas, uses, and times, or with the authority to operate and
maintain pre-existing infrastructure. Wilderness bills often contain
additional provisions, such as providing special access for particular
purposes, for example, border security. Water rights associated with wilderness designations
have also proved controversial; many statutes have addressed wilderness water rights.
Controversies regarding management of existing wilderness areas also have been
the subject of legislation. Bills have been introduced to expand access to
wilderness areas for border security; to guarantee access for hunting,
fishing, and shooting; to release wilderness study areas from wilderness-like
protection; and to limit agency review of the wilderness potential of their
lands. The latter two issues have been contentious for Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) lands for two reasons. First, BLM is required by law to
protect the wilderness characteristics of its wilderness study areas
(WSAs) until Congress determines otherwise. Second, a December 2010 secretarial
order directed BLM to maintain a wilderness inventory, to consider wilderness potential
in planning, and to protect wilderness characteristics of those “Wild Lands”
unless alternative management was deemed appropriate. The FY2012 Interior
Appropriations Act (Division E of P.L. 112-74) prohibited using funds to implement the secretarial order, and bills were
introduced to terminate the order. In June 2011, Secretary Salazar withdrew the
order, but stated that BLM would maintain a wilderness inventory and
continue to consider wilderness characteristics as required by law.
Legislation in the 113th Congress proposes to eliminate several WSAs.
Date of Report: November 15, 2013
Number of Pages: 22
Order Number: R41610
Price: $29.95
To Order:
R41610 .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
M. Lynne Corn
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Under federal law, local governments are compensated through various
programs for reductions to their property tax bases due to the presence of
most federally owned land. These lands cannot be taxed, but may create
demand for services such as fire protection, police cooperation, or simply
longer roads to skirt the federal property. Some of these programs are run by
specific agencies and apply only to that agency’s land. The most widely
applicable program, administered by the Department of the Interior (DOI),
applies to many types of federally owned land, and is called “Payments in
Lieu of Taxes,” or PILT. The authorized level of PILT payments is calculated under
a complex formula. No precise dollar figure can be given in advance for each
year’s PILT authorization level. This report addresses only the PILT program
administered by DOI. There is no PILT-like program generally applicable to
military lands, but a small fraction of military lands are eligible for
the DOI PILT program. Furthermore, PILT does not apply to Indian-owned lands, virtually
none of which are subject to local taxes.
This report explains PILT payments, with an analysis of the five major factors
affecting the calculation of a payment to a given county. It also
describes the effects of certain legislative changes in PILT in 2009 and
2012. Before 2008, annual appropriations were necessary to fund PILT, but
a provision in P.L. 110-343 for mandatory spending ensured that, beginning with FY2008
and continuing through the payment to be made in 2012, all counties would
receive 100% of the authorized payment. Then on July 6, 2012, the
President signed P.L. 112-141, containing a provision extending mandatory
spending to FY2013. The Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25) provided for a
sequestration of 5.1% of PILT payments for FY2013.
Since the creation of PILT in 1976, various changes in the law have been
proposed. One proposal has been to include additional lands under the PILT
program, particularly Indian lands, which are not now eligible for PILT.
Most categories of Indian-owned lands cannot be taxed by local governments,
though they generally enjoy county services. In some counties, this means a
very substantial portion of the land is not taxable. The remaining tax
burden (for roads, schools, fire and police protection, etc.) therefore
falls more heavily on other property owners. To help compensate for this
burden, some counties have proposed that Indian lands (variously defined) be included
among those eligible for PILT payments. Examples of other lands mentioned for inclusion
are those of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the
Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. Another proposal from some
counties would revisit the compensation formula to emphasize a payment
rate more similar to property tax rates (which vary widely among
counties), a feature that would be a major change in counties with high
property values. Finally, for lands in the National Wildlife Refuge System
(NWRS), some have argued that all lands of the system should be eligible
for PILT, rather than limiting the PILT payments to lands reserved from
the public domain and excluding PILT payments for acquired lands. The exclusion
of NWRS-acquired lands affects primarily counties in eastern states.
With PILT’s mandatory spending having expired in FY2013, the program will be
subject to the annual appropriations process for the payment to be made in
2014. Over the next few years, the larger debate for Congress might then
be summarized as three decisions: (1) whether to approve future extensions
of mandatory spending (either temporary or permanent); (2) whether to make the
diametrically opposed choice of reducing the program through appropriations or
by changing the PILT formula; and (3) whether to add or subtract any lands
to the list of those now eligible for PILT payments. Background on all
three issues is discussed here.
Date of Report: November 7, 2013
Number of Pages: 25
Order Number: RL31392
Price: $29.95
To Order:
RL31392 .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
Posts
