Volume 157, No. 169 covering the 1st Session of the 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Senate section on pages S7156-S7158 on Nov. 7, 2011.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 1810. A bill to authorize improvements to flood damage reduction facilities adjacent to the American and Sacramento Rivers near Sacramento, California, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Natomas Basin Flood Protection Improvements Act of 2011.
This legislation will authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to improve the flood control infrastructure in the Sacramento area, safeguarding many thousands of homes and businesses.
There is a pressing need to improve levees in Sacramento, a city that is perpetually cited as one of our Nation's most at-risk for severe flooding.
But even in this high-risk city, there are priority areas. Natomas, which lies between the American and Sacramento rivers, is the top priority for Sacramento flood control.
More than 100,000 people in the Natomas flood plain are at high or moderate risk of flooding.
The vast majority of these homes would be inundated with over 10 feet of water should a levee break.
In some places, inundation levels would exceed 20 feet.
The risk is clear. Estimates by the Army Corps of Engineers put the risk of levee failure at 1 in 3. Damages from a single flood could top
$7 billion.
Recognizing the need to upgrade the levees in Natomas, the Corps of Engineers completed a Chief's Report in December 2010 that identified
$1.1 billion in essential levee improvements.
According to the report, the principal levee modifications include the widening of 41.9 miles of existing levees; installation of about 34.8 miles of soil bentonite cutoff wall; installation of 8.3 miles of seepage berms, and bridge remediation on State Route 99.
In addition, the report recommends the creation of 75 acres of canal habitat, 200 acres of Marsh habitat, and 60 acres of woodland habitat to ensure the project complies with the Endangered Species Act.
The cost of these improvements will be significant, but the burden will be shared. The Chief's Report recommends that the costs of the improvements be split between the federal government and state and local stakeholders.
The report recommends roughly a 65 percent federal share and a 35 percent state and local share.
The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, SAFCA, and the California Department of Water Resources have taken the cost-share agreement to heart and are outpacing the Corps of Engineers. They have begun their work on the project even before the federal work has been authorized.
SAFCA and California have already invested more than $320 million in the Natomas Basin project and repaired about 18 miles of the basin's 42 miles of levees. By the end of 2012, this amount will increase to $370 million.
I want to take a moment to recognize SAFCA and the people of Sacramento for their efforts. They have put their money where their mouth is. This project would not be possible without the significant leadership and resources they have already committed.
County voters twice approved special tax assessments, in 2007 and 2011, to raise local funds needed to improve the levee system. These assessments will provide more than $80 million of local funds for flood control projects. In addition, local interests have provided an additional $40 million in advance of federal participation for which credit will be sought, that is a total commitment thus far of $120 million
The most recent assessment passed overwhelmingly, 84.5 percent of voters supported the measure.
Sacramento residents and homeowners understand that this levee improvement project is critical to the safety and viability of their community. Even during the worst economic downturns in a generation, voters stood together, passed the measure and sent a definitive message to Congress.
I also want to recognize Representative Doris Matsui, author of companion legislation in the House and a champion on this issue. I have had the pleasure of working with my good friend from Sacramento on flood control for nearly a decade, and her commitment and advocacy is unparalleled.
I want to reinforce the importance of this legislation. If Sacramento levees fail, the results will be devastating Sacramento International Airport, which serves 4.4 million passengers per year and is the primary air-cargo hub for the region, will be largely underwater.
Interstate 5, Interstate 80 and State Route 99 will be closed or restricted. These roads serve as freight arteries and facilitate the passage of more than 2,500 trucks per day.
Access to the Port of West Sacramento, the city's primary seaport, will be jeopardized.
Flooding in Sacramento is not a question of if, but when.
Recordbreaking storms hit the region in 1951, 1956, 1964, 1986 and 1997.
During the 1997 storm, levee failures in the nearby cities of Olivehurst, Arboga, Wilton, Manteca and Modesto caused mass evacuations and millions of dollars in damages.
An even more devastating flood occurred in 1861 when the American River Levee failed. California's newly elected Governor, Leland Stanford, was forced to take a row-boat to his inauguration and the state capital was temporarily moved to San Francisco.
In January of this year, the U.S. Geological Survey released a study entitled ``ARkStorm'' that examined the impacts of an atmospheric river storm event in California. This storm scenario produced rainfall levels seen once every 500 to 1,000 years.
In this model, the Central Valley would experience 300 miles of flooding, 20 or more miles wide. Evacuations could involve 1.5 million residents, with hundreds of landslides damaging roads, highways, and homes.
There is a statistical possibility that the cataclysmic scenario run by the U.S.G.S. will occur in our lifetime. The possibility is small, but it could happen.
So we must be prepared if it does.
The Natomas Basin Flood Protection Improvements Act of 2011 is one small step toward achieving that.
This legislation addresses the needs of one of the highest-risk communities in our Nation.
While this legislation isn't cheap, the cost-share relieves a sizable share of the Federal responsibility.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1810
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Natomas Basin Flood Protection Improvements Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. PROJECT MODIFICATION, AMERICAN AND SACRAMENTO RIVERS,
CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The project for flood damage reduction, American and Sacramento Rivers, California, authorized by section 101(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-303; 110 Stat. 3662; 113 Stat. 319; 117 Stat. 1839; 121 Stat. 1947), is modified to authorize the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to construct improvements to flood damage reduction facilities adjacent to the American and Sacramento Rivers in the vicinity of Sacramento, California, substantially in accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers entitled
``American River Watershed (Common Features) Project, Natomas Basin, Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California'', and dated December 30, 2010, at an estimated total cost of
$1,389,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$921,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$468,300,000.
(b) Credit for Non-Federal Work.--
(1) In general.--The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for expenses and in-kind contributions incurred by the non-Federal interest in carrying out a project described in subsection (a) for planning, design, and construction of the project and acquisition of any land, easement, right-of-way, relocation, and dredged material disposal area for the project.
(2) Application of credit.--The credit under paragraph (1) shall be applied toward the non-Federal share of--
(A) the project; or
(B) any other project for which the non-Federal interest has entered into a cost-sharing agreement with the Secretary.
(3) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in this subsection limits the ability of the non-Federal interest to pursue credit or reimbursement for work performed by the non-Federal interest in connection with the project under any other law (including regulations), authority, or procedure, including section 104 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2214).
______
By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself and Mr. Pryor):
S. 1815. A bill to codify and delay the implemenlation of and compliance dates for a final rule relating to interstate transport of air pollution; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, later this week the Senate will vote on a resolution to disapprove the Clean Air Act rule designed to limit the blowing of powerplant pollution from one State to another. In my opinion, overturning the rule would throw the matter back to regulators, back to courts, back to lawsuits, and back into a delay.
Senator Pryor of Arkansas and I are introducing today S. 1815. We have sent it to the desk. It is bipartisan legislation that will provide what we believe is a better approach, and that approach is to enact the clean air rule into law but give utilities 1 additional year in which to comply with it. Our approach would provide certainty and cleaner air at the lowest possible cost to ratepayers.
The motion to overturn the clean air rule will be offered by the junior Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Paul.
Tennesseans admire much about our Kentucky neighbors. We admire their bluegrass, we admire their basketball, we admire their distinguished Senators. But Tennesseans don't want Kentucky's State income tax, and we don't want Kentucky's dirty air. We also know our neighbors in North Carolina don't want Tennessee's dirty air blowing into North Carolina because they have told us that through lawsuits in the courts, which they have won.
Air pollution blowing from one State into another makes our citizens sick, especially our younger Tennesseans and our older Tennesseans. Air pollution blowing from other States into our State is a jobs issue. Pollution makes our Great Smoky Mountains more like the ``Great Smoggy Mountains.'' We like to see our mountains and we like for the 9 million visitors who come to visit us every year to stay a long time and to spend a lot of money because that supports our schools and it supports our State revenue.
Dirty air blowing into Tennessee from other States makes it harder for us to create jobs in yet another way. I remember 30 years ago when I was Governor of Tennessee and the Nissan corporation came to our State. The very first thing Nissan did when it came to Tennessee was to go down to the State Air Quality Board and ask for an air quality permit in order to operate its paint plant. Fortunately, the air quality in the Nashville area was clean enough that Nissan could locate there. If Nissan hadn't been able to obtain an air quality permit to operate its paint plant, it would have been in Georgia or some other State. As a result the auto jobs which have come to Tennessee in the tens of thousands over the last 30 years would most likely have went to some other State.
So dirty air blowing from Kentucky into Tennessee or Tennessee into North Carolina or from any State into another State makes it harder for the recipient State's communities to get their quality permits. It makes it harder, for example, for us to say to Volkswagen and its suppliers: We can provide a home to you because our air is clean enough so that you can get our air quality permit.
Mr. President, in 2005, the Bush administration first put into place the predecessor to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule that we will be voting on later this week. Federal courts found that the Bush rule was flawed in some technical respects and ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to write a new rule, which some now seek to overturn by means of the Congressional Review Act. The Bush clean air rule that was put in place in 2005 has now been there for 6 years. Many utilities have already taken steps to comply with it.
The pollution standards in the new rule we will be voting on are about the same as those established in the 2005 Bush rule. As an example of costs, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Nation's largest public utility, tells us that complying with the amended rule will cost its ratepayers between $1 and $2 a month.
We often hear, and I will have to say that a lot of those comments often come from our side of the aisle, that it is the job of Congress, not the bureaucrats and the courts, to write the clean air rules. The commonsense legislation that Senator Pryor and I offer today is an opportunity for Congress to do its job in a way that will clean the air at the lowest possible cost to ratepayers.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up