Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-560

======================================================================



 
               REAUTHORIZATION OF THE CLEAN LAKES PROGRAM

                                _______
                                

 April 4, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Shuster, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 2328]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 2328) to amend the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Clean Lakes Program, 
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. GRANTS TO STATES

  Section 314(c)(2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1324(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``$50,000,000'' the first 
place it appears and all that follows through ``1990'' and inserting 
``$50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005''.

SEC. 2. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

  Section 314(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
1324(d)) is amended--
          (1) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``Otsego Lake, New York; 
        Oneida Lake, New York; Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania; Swan Lake, 
        Itasca County, Minnesota;'' after ``Sauk Lake, Minnesota;'';
          (2) in paragraph (3) by striking ``By'' and inserting 
        ``Notwithstanding section 3003 of the Federal Reports 
        Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (31 U.S.C. 1113 note; 109 
        Stat. 734-736), by''; and
          (3) in paragraph (4)(B)(i) by striking ``$15,000,000'' and 
        inserting ``$25,000,000''.

                          Summary and Purpose

    H.R. 2328, a bill to reauthorize the Clean Lakes Program, 
was introduced by Representative John Sweeney on June 23, 1999, 
and was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure. The purpose of H.R. 2328 is to reauthorize 
funding for the Clean Lakes program for fiscal year 2001 
through fiscal year 2005 and to increase the authorized funding 
level for the ``acidified waters'' component of the program.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    The Clean Lakes Program, established under Section 314 of 
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly referred to 
as the Clean Water Act), provides financial and technical 
assistance to States to restore publicly owned lakes. This is 
the primary federal program that puts a national focus and 
priority on lakes--their monitoring, protection, and 
management.
    Over the last century an array of anthropogenic forces has 
led to significant water quality impairment in thousands of 
North American lakes. In recognition of the unique water 
quality challenges facing our Nation's lakes, Congress included 
the Clean Lakes Program in the 1972 amendments to the Act. 
Section 314 contains various state assessment and reporting 
requirements, a national demonstration program, and an 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant program for 
assistance to States in carrying out projects and program 
responsibilities.
    Since 1976, the Clean Lakes Program has received 
approximately $145 million for federal grants. The funding 
authorization for the program expired in fiscal year 1990. EPA 
has not requested funding for the Clean Lakes Program in recent 
years and the program has not received appropriations since 
fiscal year 1995. Through its May 1996 nonpoint source 
guidance, EPA encouraged states to fund eligible Clean Lakes 
activities through funds available pursuant to Section 319 
(relating to nonpoint source management). Some funds for the 
Clean Lakes program have been made available through Section 
319. Most recently, EPA has encouraged states to set aside a 
percentage of Section 319 funds for Section 314 activities.
    Various public and private organizations involved in lake 
water quality management have been seeking an increase in 
funding for the Section 314 program. Over the past two decades, 
lake restoration techniques have improved dramatically and are 
viewed by many as an important component of meeting the Clean 
Water Act's objective of having all our Nation's waters 
``fishable and swimmable,'' including the 41 million acres of 
freshwater lakes. In addition, there is growing concern about 
the damaging effects of acid rain and acid mine drainage on the 
Nation's lakes. The project funding needed to address the 
problems of our Nation's largest and most nationally 
significant lakes can overwhelm the resources any one state can 
provide. Separate, adequate, and consistent funding for the 
Section 314 program is necessary to meet the needs of the 
states' lake programs.
    Many have also viewed the Clean Lakes Program as an 
excellent opportunity for watershed-based, community-driven 
projects and activities. Since its inception, the program has 
been popular with local ``grassroots'' organizations and 
citizens. Section 314 offers the opportunity for necessary 
partnerships among federal, state, and local entities and, 
unlike Section 319, a focus on both prevention and remediation 
of pollution. The framework of the program is also broad enough 
to help communities address a wide range of issues, including 
not only nonpoint source runoff but also atmospheric 
deposition, degraded shoreline, mercury contamination, wetland 
loss, lake use conflicts, fishery imbalances, invasive species, 
and other threats to water quality and lake habitat. Many of 
these problems have proven difficult or impossible to address 
under Section 319 project guidelines. Separate Clean Lakes 
Program funding is needed to focus attention and resources on 
the special needs of the Nation's lakes.
    H.R. 2328 responds to these needs by reauthorizing the 
Clean Lakes Program (at $50 million per year for fiscal years 
2001 through 2005) and increasing the funding authorization for 
the acidified waters projects from $15 million to $25 million.

      Discussion of Committee Bill and Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1. Grants to States

    This section amends Section 314(c)(2) of the Clean Water 
Act by authorizing $50 million per year for grants to States to 
implement the Clean Lakes Program for each of fiscal years 2001 
through 2005.

Section 2. Demonstration program

    This section amends Section 314(d) of the Clean Water Act 
as follows:
    Paragraph (2) is amended by adding several lakes to the 
list of lakes to receive priority consideration for 
demonstration projects. The lakes added to this list are: 
Otsego Lake in New York; Oneida Lake in New York; Raystown Lake 
in Pennsylvania; and Swan Lake in Itasca County, Minnesota.
    Otsego Lake in New York is at the headwaters of the 
Susquehanna River, the largest single freshwater source for the 
Chesapeake Bay. There is a national effort to clean up the 
Chesapeake Bay, the success of which is important to the 
nation. Otsego Lake is physically unique in the Susquehanna 
River Basin because its size and shape result in high 
concentrations of oxygen in its deep waters, but conversely 
allow relatively minor amounts of polluting nutrients to remove 
that oxygen annually. Otsego Lake is biologically unique in 
that those deep water oxygen concentrations provide habitat for 
cold water fisheries (lake trout, Atlantic salmon, brown trout, 
whitefish and cisco) which are now in jeopardy because of the 
sustained loss of bottom oxygen each late summer and fall. That 
same sensitivity to pollutants means that Otsego Lake is very 
responsive to pollutant removal through management activities.
    Oneida Lake in New York is the largest inland lake in the 
state and home to 74 species of fish. The lake watershed covers 
five counties and more than 800,000 acres. This lake is 
experiencing water quality problems and the use of the lake is 
impaired. There are significant concerns regarding sediment and 
nutrient runoff to the lake from tributaries, and agricultural 
and urban land use trends. In addition, algal blooms, rooted 
vegetation, and invasive species are problems for this lake.
    With a length of 30 miles and covering 8,300 acres, 
Raystown Lake is the largest lake on Pennsylvania's list of 
significant lakes. Based on Pennsylvania's assessment of lakes 
under the Clean Lakes Program, Raystown Lake has been 
designated a high priority. At present, the lake supports a 
wide variety of recreational activities and provides 
significant economic benefits to the region. However, the lake 
has been identified by Pennsylvania as threatened. This means 
that, although the lake currently attains all of its designated 
uses, there are data or assessment information that indicate an 
existing or potential downward trend in water quality which may 
impair designated uses if remedial actions are not initiated.
    Swan Lake, in Itasca County, Minnesota, is a lake of 
tremendous regional significance. The lake's watershed covers 
approximately 100 square miles, including the City of Nashwauk, 
located northeast of the lake. Swan Lake supports a wide range 
of recreational activities, including boating and fishing, and 
provides a significant economic benefit to the region. However, 
water quality in the lake has diminished over the years due to 
mining and industrial activities. In addition, because of the 
poor soils surrounding the lake, the near shores of the lake 
contain a high density of onsite sewage disposal systems, which 
have caused further degradation of water quality.
    The Committee intends that the Administrator also give 
priority consideration to Lake George in New York. This lake is 
subject to a variety of threats, including invasive species and 
acid rain. In addition, the Committee intends that the 
Administrator work with the Center for Lakes and Reservoirs at 
Portland State University in addressing the problems of 
eutrophication and nonindigenous species management in Ten Mile 
and Waldo Lakes in Oregon.
    Paragraph (3) is amended to prevent the report to Congress 
on the Clean Lakes demonstration program from expiring under 
the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995.
    Paragraph (4) is amended to increase the special 
authorization of financial assistance to States to carry out 
methods and procedures to mitigate harmful effects of high 
acidity from acid deposition or acid mine drainage from $15 
million to $25 million. The Committee believes there is a 
growing need to address water quality problems associated with 
acid rain and acid mine drainage.

                    Hearings and Legislative History

    On October 18, 1999, the Water Resources and Environment 
Subcommittee held a field hearing in Cooperstown, New York, on 
``Clean Lakes and Water Quality Management,'' including H.R. 
2328. Testimony was given by the Environmental Protection 
Agency, the Corps of Engineers, the New York State Department 
of Environmental Conservation and representatives of lake 
management, research, and academic organizations and 
institutions.

                        Committee Consideration

    On Wednesday, March 8, 2000, the Water Resources and 
Environment Subcommittee approved by voice vote, H.R. 2328, 
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Rep. 
Sherwood Boehlert. The substitute amendment (a) adjusted the 
authorization level for the Clean Lakes program to $50 million 
annually; (b) added additional lakes to the list of lakes to 
receive priority consideration for demonstration projects; (c) 
increased the special authorization of financial assistance to 
States to mitigate harmful effects of high acidity from acid 
deposition or acid mine drainage from $15 million to $25 
million; and (d) prevented the report to Congress on the Clean 
Lakes demonstration program from expiring under the Federal 
Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995.
    On Thursday, March 16, 2000, the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure met in open session and 
approved by voice vote a motion to report the bill as amended.

                             Rollcall Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives 
requires each committee report to include the total number of 
votes cast for and against on each rollcall vote on a motion to 
report and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter, 
and the names of those members voting for and against. There 
were no rollcall votes in the Committee.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are 
reflected in this report.

                          Cost of Legislation

    Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the 
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is 
included in this report.

                    Compliance With House Rule XIII

    1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee 
references the report of the Congressional Budget Office 
included below.
    2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee has received no report of oversight findings and 
recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight on the subject of H.R. 2328.
    3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 
2328 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

               congressional budget office cost estimate

H.R. 2328--A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
        reauthorize the Clean Lakes program

    Summary: H.R. 2328 would reauthorize the Clean Lakes 
program and authorize an appropriation of $50 million for each 
of fiscal years 2001 through 2005 for the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) to provide financial and technical 
assistance to states in restoring publicly owned lakes. The 
bill also would authorize a one-time appropriation of $25 
million for grants to states to study the effects of acid rain 
and mine drainage. CBO estimates that implementing this 
legislation over the next five years would increase 
discretionary spending by $239 million. The bill would not 
affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go 
procedures would not apply.
    H.R. 2328 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments. The bill would authorize funding to continue 
providing grants to states to carry out activities already 
mandated under the Clean Lakes program.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: For purposes of 
this estimate, CBO assumes that the amounts authorized will be 
appropriated for each fiscal year and that outlays will occur 
at rates similar to those of past appropriations for EPA 
activities associated with the Clean Lakes program. The 
estimated impact of the H.R. 2328 is shown in the following 
table. The costs of legislation fall within budget function 300 
(natural resources and the environment).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      By fiscal year, in millions of
                                                 dollars--
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                   2001    2002    2003    2004    2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated authorization level         75      50      50      50      50
 \1\............................
Estimated outlays...............      38      48      52      51      50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Clean Lakes program has not received an appropriation since
  1994.

    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Intergovernmental or private-sector impact: H.R. 2328 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or 
tribal governments. The bill would authorize funding to 
continue providing grants to states to carry out activities 
already mandated under the Clean Lakes program.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Susanne S. Mehlman; 
Impact on State, local, and tribal governments: Theresa Gullo; 
Impact on the private sector: Jean Wooster.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or 
joint resolution of a public character shall include a 
statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in 
the Constitution to enact the measure. The Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure finds that Congress has the 
authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted 
under article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act. (Public Law 104-4.)

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                Applicability to the Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. (Public Law 
104-1.)

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

         SECTION 314 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT


                              clean lakes

    Sec. 314. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c)(1) * * *
    (2) There is authorized to be appropriated [$50,000,000 for 
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973; $100,000,000 for the 
fiscal year 1974; $150,000,000 for the fiscal year 1975, 
$50,000,000 for fiscal year 1977, $60,000,000 for fiscal year 
1978, $60,000,000 for fiscal year 1979, $60,000,000 for fiscal 
year 1980, $30,000,000 for fiscal year 1981, $30,000,000 for 
fiscal year 1982, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 
years 1983 through 1985, and $30,000,000 per fiscal year for 
each of the fiscal years 1986 through 1990] $50,000,000 for 
each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005 for grants to States 
under subsection (b) of this section which such sums shall 
remain available until expended. The Administrator shall 
provide for an equitable distribution of such sums to the 
States with approved methods and procedures under subsection 
(a) of this section.
    (d) Demonstration Program.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Geographical requirements.--Demonstration 
        projects authorized by this subsection shall be 
        undertaken to reflect a variety of geographical and 
        environmental conditions. As a priority, the 
        Administrator shall undertake demonstration projects at 
        Lake Champlain, New York and Vermont; Lake Houston, 
        Texas; Beaver Lake, Arkansas; Greenwood Lake and 
        Belcher Creek, New Jersey; Deal Lake, New Jersey; 
        Alcyon Lake, New Jersey; Gorton's Pond, Rhode Island; 
        Lake Washington, Rhode Island; Lake Bomoseen, Vermont; 
        Sauk Lake, Minnesota; Otsego Lake, New York; Oneida 
        Lake, New York; Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania; Swan Lake, 
        Itasca County, Minnesota; and Lake Worth, Texas.
          (3) Reports.--[By] Notwithstanding section 3003 of 
        the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 
        (31 U.S.C. 1113 note; 109 Stat. 734-736), by January 1, 
        1997, and January 1 of every odd-numbered year 
        thereafter, the Administrator shall report to the 
        Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
        House of Representatives and the Committee on 
        Environment and Public Works of the Senate on work 
        undertaken pursuant to this subsection. Upon completion 
        of the program authorized by this subsection, the 
        Administrator shall submit to such committees a final 
        report on the results of such program, along with 
        recommendations for further measures to improve the 
        water quality of the Nation's lakes.
          (4) Authorization of appropriations.--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) Special authorizations.--
                          (i) Amount.--There is authorized to 
                        be appropriated to carry out subsection 
                        (b) with respect to subsection 
                        (a)(1)(D) not to exceed [$15,000,000] 
                        $25,000,000 for fiscal years beginning 
                        after September 30, 1986, to remain 
                        available until expended.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *