Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 2647 - Coastal Defense Initiative of 1990

(House)
(Studds (D) MA and 32 others)

The Administration strongly opposes enactment of H.R. 2647 because it would impede current Federal regulatory efforts to protect coastal resources. The bill would duplicate existing Federal activities, and impose unreasonable time-frames, unworkable standards, and excessive reporting requirements on States and Federal agencies. It would require mandatory programs where discretionary use of authority is most appropriate. Finally, its $242 million authorization level exceeds the President's FY 1991 budget request by $212 million.

Among its most objectionable provisions, H.R. 2647 would increase the authorization of appropriations for State wastewater treatment revolving funds by $200 million above the currently authorized FY 1992 level of $1. 8 billion. This would reverse one of the key reforms of the Water Quality Act of 1987 — the return to State and local governments of the responsibility for funding wastewater treatment construction. This provision would violate the congressionally-mandated schedule for phasing out the Federal funding of this program.

The Administration also opposes the establishment of a Coastal Defense Fund, annually authorized at $150 million, to finance State grants and other water quality activities authorized under this Act. The Fund would be financed primarily by earmarking sums equal to a portion of the U. S. Treasury's Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas development receipts, and diverting water pollution fines and penalties. This financing requirement would unnecessarily reduce the President's flexibility to establish budget priorities and manage the Executive branch.

Among its other objectionable provisions, H.R. 2647 would require the use of sediment quality criteria. The Administration does not oppose the eventual use of such criteria. It does, however, oppose, their application in the near term without taking into account other critical decision criteria such as economic impacts and impacts of other disposal options. This requirement may not necessarily provide additional environmental benefits.

The Administration also objects to provisions which would:

—  Attempt to waive the Federal Government's sovereign immunity by allowing States to collect fines and penalties from Federal facilities for violations of certain provisions contained in this Act.

—  Nearly triple (to $30 million) the Great Lakes cleanup program's current annual authorization level, and earmark 90 percent of this amount for specific activities, including a new, unnecessary, and redundant $10 million State grant program. Such earmarking could cause major disruptions in the existing program for which $13 million was appropriated in FY 1990.

—  Require the EPA Administrator to consider applying ocean discharge criteria to entities discharging materials into certain estuaries. This could significantly delay permit issuance, and increase resources required to permit such discharges without necessarily resulting in significant environmental gains.

—  Authorize a duplicative coastal monitoring program at an annual cost of approximately $30 million.

—  Authorize $20 million annually for State grants to implement comprehensive conservation and management plans developed under the National Estuary Program. Implementation of such plans should be carried out through reordering priorities within existing programs and/or through additional funding by State and local governments.

—  Set an undesirable precedent in the National Estuary Program by earmarking approximately $20 million for Puget Sound(WA), Buzzards Bay (MA), and Albermarle Sound (NC), only three of 17 estuaries included in this $18 million national program. Work at the other 14 estuaries included in the program might need to be curtailed for lack of funds were this provision to be enacted.

—  Require each coastal State to establish a new program to designate specified off-shore waters and protect them from degradation. This program could adversely impact the development, transportation, generation, and refinement of important energy resources.