Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
Congressional research reportNov 12, 2009
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation
Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
(name redacted), Coordinator
Analyst in Agricultural Policy
November 12, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R40911
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
Summary
This report summarizes and compares climate change adaptation-related provisions in the
American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454) and the Clean Energy, Jobs, and
Power Act (S. 1733). H.R. 2454 was introduced by Representatives Waxman and Markey and
passed the House on June 26, 2009. S. 1733 was introduced to the Senate by Senators Boxer and
Kerry and, after subsequent revisions made in the form of a manager’s substitution amendment,
was reported out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on November 5, 2009.
Adaptation measures aim to improve an individual’s or institution’s ability to cope with or avoid
harmful impacts of climate change, and to take advantage of potential beneficial ones. Both H.R.
2454 and S. 1733 include adaptation provisions that (1) seek to better assess the impacts of
climate change and variability that are occurring now and in the future; and (2) support adaptation
activities related to climate change, both domestically and internationally.
Overall, while the two bills would authorize similar adaptation programs, they differ somewhat in
scope and emphasis, and they also differ in the distribution of emission allowance allocations
over time. Both bills contain provisions that address international climate change adaptation;
domestic climate change adaptation programs, including the U.S. Global Change Research
Program (USGCRP), the National Climate Service, and state and tribal programs; public health;
and natural resources adaptation. S. 1733 includes five additional provisions not provided for in
the House bill that deal with drinking water utilities; water system mitigation and adaptation
partnerships; flood control, protection, prevention, and response; wildfire; and coastal Great
Lakes states’ adaptation.
Neither the Senate-reported bill (S. 1733) nor the House-passed bill (H.R. 2454) contains a
process at the federal level for developing and implementing a national strategic plan to address
the full range of sectors expected to be affected by climate change. Neither bill includes
provisions that explicitly address adaptation in major sectors such as transportation and energy
infrastructure, or agriculture.
Another difference between S. 1733 and H.R. 2454 is the distribution of allowance allocations
over time, and the subsequent availability of the amounts credited to certain funds. The relative
distribution of allowances to adaptation-related activities is slightly higher in the House bill than
in the Senate bill, and the difference increases over time, but the actual amounts of revenue
generated would be contingent on the number and price of emission allowances. The Senate bill
provides that funds for many adaptation-related provisions, such as for natural resources and
public health, are made available “without further appropriations.” In contrast, the analogous
provisions in the House bill provide that the funds would become available only by subsequent
appropriations.
A side-by-side table is included in an appendix to the report that compares adaptation-related
provisions in H.R. 2454 and S. 1733.
Congressional Research Service
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................1
Climate Change and Adaptation ..................................................................................................2
Importance of Adaptation......................................................................................................2
Current Status of Public Action .............................................................................................3
Overview of Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 (as Reported by the Senate EPW
Committee) vs. H.R. 2454 (as Passed by the House).................................................................4
Allowance Allocations for Adaptation-Related Activities.......................................................5
International Adaptation........................................................................................................7
Domestic Adaptation.............................................................................................................9
National Climate Change Adaptation Program .............................................................. 10
National Climate Service............................................................................................... 11
State Adaptation Programs ............................................................................................ 11
Public Health ...................................................................................................................... 12
Natural Resources Adaptation ............................................................................................. 12
Water-Related Adaptation.................................................................................................... 14
Tables
Table 1. Adaptation Allowances in S. 1733 vs. H.R. 2454............................................................6
Table 2. Climate Change Adaptation Cost Estimates by Sector Needed by 2030 ..........................8
Appendixes
Appendix. Comparison of Adaptation-Related Provisions in H.R. 2454 (as Passed by the
House) and S. 1733 (as Reported by the Senate EPW Committee) .......................................... 17
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 33
Congressional Research Service
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
Introduction
Congress is currently considering major legislation related to climate change. Climate change
responses have typically been categorized into two broad types: mitigation and adaptation.
Mitigation measures attempt to slow down the occurrence of climate change by, for example,
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Adaptation measures, on the other hand, aim to improve an
individual or institution’s ability to cope with or avoid harmful impacts of climate change, and to
take advantage of potential beneficial ones. While much attention has been paid to mitigation
efforts, a growing focus on current impacts of climate change has led to specific provisions in
several bills that would increase research on and programmatic attention to possible options for
adaptation.1 Climate change mitigation and adaptation activities are not mutually exclusive, and
in most cases can actually be complementary. Because the extent of climate change impacts upon
different ecosystems, regions, and sectors of the economy will depend not only on the sensitivity
of those systems to climate change, but also on the systems’ ability to adapt to climate change,
both types of activities are considered by many to be an essential part of a comprehensive
approach to dealing with the impacts of climate change.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454) passed the House on June 26,
2009. The Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee approved the Clean Energy,
Jobs, and Power Act (S. 1733) on November 5, 2009.2 Both H.R. 2454 and S. 1733 would
establish a cap-and-trade system to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and address energy topics
including energy efficiency and renewable energy. Both bills also include adaptation provisions
that (1) seek to better assess the impacts of climate change and variability that are occurring now
and in the future; and (2) support adaptation activities related to climate change, both
domestically and internationally.
This report summarizes and compares the adaptation-related provisions in H.R. 2454 and S. 1733.
A side-by-side table in an Appendix to the report compares relevant provisions related to climate
change adaptation in both bills. The provisions are grouped into the following headings:
•
International Climate Change Adaptation
•
Domestic Climate Change Adaptation (including the National Climate Change
Adaptation Program and the National Climate Services Program)
•
State and Tribal Programs
•
Public Health
•
Natural Resources Adaptation
•
Other Climate Change Adaptation Programs, including Water Resources (in S.
1733 only)
1
For instance, in October, Senators Bingaman, Whitehouse, and Baucus introduced the Natural Resources Climate
Adaptation Act of 2009, which would require federal agencies to prepare a national strategy and agency plans to
minimize the adverse impacts of climate change on natural resources and maximize resilience.
2
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported out of committee on November 5, 2009, a revised
version of S. 1733, a manager’s amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 1733 was originally introduced by Senators
Boxer and Kerry in September 2009. The analysis herein refers to the Senate EPW Committee-reported version of S.
1733, which is available at the Senate EPW Committee website: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=
Files.View&FileStore_id=1d1bc826-beed-4eb3-933b-d7559bc61d4b.
Congressional Research Service
1
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
Climate Change and Adaptation
Importance of Adaptation
Climate-related changes have been observed in the United States and globally. A recent report by
the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) provided scientific documentation of the
impacts of climate change already occurring in the United States.3 The report analyzed different
sectors and regions of the United States and concluded that climate disruption causes a wide
range of damaging impacts in the United States currently, and that these impacts will continue to
intensify, depending on the region. The report also found that population growth and increased
use of resources will limit the ability of society and natural systems to adapt successfully. Specific
findings include increased:
•
stress on water resources, which will amplify regional droughts and reduce water
supply, especially in regions dependent on western mountain snowpack;
•
risk for coastal settlements, infrastructure, and ecosystems from sea-level rise and
more intense hurricanes and storm surges;
•
numbers of wildfires and areas of forest adversely affected or destroyed by pest
outbreaks linked to warming;
•
threats to human health related to heat waves, poor air quality, and insect-borne
diseases;
•
challenges to crop and livestock production due to increasing stress on water
resources, increasing temperatures, increasing outbreaks of pests and diseases,
and the need for new management practices;
•
stress of population growth and overuse of resources, which will limit the ability
of society and natural systems to adapt successfully.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in its Fourth Assessment Report
that “adaptation will be necessary to address impacts resulting from the warming which is already
unavoidable due to past emissions.”4 The panel concluded that many industrial sectors and the
natural environment, including agriculture, forestry, water resources, human health, coastal
settlements, and natural ecosystems, will need to adapt to a changing climate or possibly face
diminished productivity, functioning, and health.
Adaptation can include a wide range of activities. For agriculture, examples of adaptation can
include farmers changing management practices—for example, altering their planting dates and
irrigation scheduling—or farmers switching to different crop varieties altogether, in response to
changing temperature and rainfall regimes. For coastal regions, strategies to prevent damage from
climate change and rising sea levels can include improving shoreline protection measures—for
example, installing dikes, levies, other structures, and beach vegetation—or can result in
3
United States Global Change Research Program, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, 2009,
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts.
4
M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson, eds., Climate Change 2007:
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, UK.
Congressional Research Service
2
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
companies relocating key business centers away from coastal areas vulnerable to inundation and
hurricanes. The costs of implementing adaptation measures are generally considered in relation to
the value of the assets protected, in order to assess the net benefit of adaptation investments.
Current Status of Public Action
While adaptation as an approach for dealing with the impacts of climate change is gaining
increasing attention, few examples exist of concrete actions or strategies dealing with adaptation
across different levels of government. According to a recent report by the National Research
Council (NRC), individuals and institutions are unprepared both conceptually and practically for
meeting the challenges and opportunities that climate change presents.5 Similarly, at a recent
hearing of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, experts
testified that current U.S. adaptation efforts are largely ad hoc, uncoordinated, underfunded, and
lacking the information needed to make critical decisions.6 Specifically, testimony from the
Government Accountability Office (GAO), based on its recently released report on nationwide
climate change adaptation efforts, concluded that adaptation efforts are often constrained by a
lack of site-specific data, such as local projections of expected changes, and by a lack of clear
roles and responsibilities among federal, state, and local agencies.7 The NRC report included
recommendations to bolster the capacity of federal programs in the area of climate science and
information; to strengthen research on adaptation, mitigation, and vulnerability; to initiate a
periodic national assessment of climate impacts and responses; and to routinely provide
policymakers and the public with the relevant scientific information, tools, and forecasts to make
better-informed decisions.
Adaptation initiatives are starting to gain traction at the federal and state levels. 8 For instance, the
Department of Interior (DOI) recently launched an internal agency initiative to develop a
coordinated strategy to address current and future impacts of climate change. 9 The DOI initiative,
which was established through secretarial order,10 establishes a framework through which Interior
bureaus will coordinate climate change science and resource management strategies. Also, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) Regional Integrated Sciences and
Assessments has a program that supports research to meet the adaptation-related information needs of
local decision-makers. While federal agencies are beginning to recognize the need to adapt to
climate change, there is still a general lack of strategic coordination across agencies, and most
efforts to adapt to potential climate change impacts are preliminary.
5
National Research Council, Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change,
2009, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12595.
6
House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, “Building U.S. Resilience to Global
Warming Impacts,” hearing held on October 22, 2009, http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0011#main_content.
7
General Accountability Office (GAO), Climate Change Adaptation—Strategic Federal Planning Could Help
Government Officials Make More Informed Decisions, GAO-10-113, October 2009, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/
d10113.pdf.
8
For an overview of what 13 federal agencies are doing related to climate change adaptation, see Government
Accountability Office (GAO), Climate Change Adaptation: Information on Selected Federal Efforts to Adapt to a
Changing Climate, GAO-10-114SP, October 7, 2009, an E-supplement to GAO-10-113, http://www.gao.gov/
new.items/d10114sp.pdf.
9
See http://www.doi.gov/news/09_News_Releases/091409.html.
10
Secretarial Order No. 3289, http://www.doi.gov/climatechange/SecOrder3289.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
Some states have begun to make progress on adaptation independently and through partnerships
with other entities, such as academic institutions. The state of California recently developed and
released a draft California Climate Adaptation Strategy.11 This is the first example of a strategic,
operational plan for collaborative action by state agencies to adapt to impacts of global climate
disruption and sea-level rise. Maryland has also begun a strategic planning process to better
understand the impacts of climate change on the state’s economy and natural resources, especially
the Chesapeake Bay region, and to coordinate state efforts.
In devising these strategic plans for adaptation, states are often calling for more resources,
leadership, and coordination from the federal government. Specifically, state agencies such as
those in California and Maryland are advocating for:
•
more federal support for state research programs that generate locally relevant
data and information related to potential impacts of climate change;
•
an integrated national intergovernmental strategy on adaptation that is
coordinated among relevant state and federal agencies, and is multidisciplinary
and inclusive of other sectors such as transportation, energy, agriculture, forestry,
water resources, and utilities;
•
more dedicated federal funding for adaptation, to carry out programs to protect
coastal communities, natural resources, and the national interest from the impacts
of climate change.
Some are skeptical of implementing wide-scale adaptation measures and argue that adaptation
activities should not be comprehensively pursued because attention and resources will detract
from mitigation efforts. Others think that adaptation activities are just another way for various
interest groups and sectors to seek government subsidies for activities they would already
otherwise be doing.
Overview of Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 (as
Reported by the Senate EPW Committee) vs. H.R.
2454 (as Passed by the House)
This report summarizes and compares the adaptation provisions in S. 1733, as reported by the
Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee on November 5, 2009, and H.R. 2454,
as passed by the House on June 26, 2009. Overall, while the two bills would authorize similar
adaptation programs, they differ somewhat in scope and emphasis, and they also differ in the
distribution of emission allowance allocations, which in effect provide monetary resources for
specified programs and activities. 12 Both bills contain provisions that address:
11
See http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CNRA-1000-2009-027/CNRA-1000-2009-027-D.PDF.
12
In a cap-and-trade system, companies or other groups are issued a number of emission allowances (or credits) which
represent the right to emit a specific amount of greenhouse gases. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot
exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Policymakers decide how, to whom, and for what purpose to
distribute emission allowances. The allowances represent significant value in terms of a wealth transfer in the case of
directly allocated allowances or government revenue in the case of auctioned allowances. For more information, see
CRS Report RL34502, Emission Allowance Allocation in a Cap-and-Trade Program: Options and Considerations, by
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
•
international climate change adaptation;
•
domestic climate change adaptation programs, including the National Climate
Change Program and the National Climate Service;
•
state and tribal programs;
•
public health; and
•
natural resources adaptation.
S. 1733 contains five additional provisions (not contained in the House bill) that deal with:
•
drinking water utilities;
•
water system mitigation and adaptation partnerships;
•
flood control, protection, prevention, and response;
•
wildfire; and
•
coastal Great Lakes state adaptation.
Neither the Senate-reported bill (S. 1733) nor the House-passed bill (H.R. 2454) contains a
process at the federal level for developing and implementing a national strategic plan to address
the full range of sectors expected to be affected by climate change. Neither bill includes explicit
provisions that address adaptation in major sectors such as transportation and energy
infrastructure, or agriculture, although these activities are allowable under state programs for
climate adaptation that are provided for in both bills.
It should be noted that while forestry and agriculture are considered extensively in S. 1733 and
H.R. 2454 with regard to supplemental emissions reductions, set-asides and allowances, and
carbon offsets, these considerations are not specifically related to adaptation. Depending on the
nature of the implementation, these programs could potentially assist in forest and agriculture
adaptation to climate change. However, they have not been included in this report because
emissions mitigation is their primary purpose (not adaptation), and adaptation is not necessarily a
consideration in their implementation.
Allowance Allocations for Adaptation-Related Activities
Although there are significant differences in how the overall emission allowances are distributed,
both bills would allocate allowances or auction revenues to fund various adaptation activities.13
Table 1 provides an overview of the emission allowances allocated to adaptation-related activities
for 2016 and 2030, given as a percentage of total allowances for both bills.
(...continued)
(name redacted).
13
For a comparison of cap-and-trade provisions, including a discussion of allowance allocation differences between S.
1733 and H.R. 2454, see CRS Report R40896, Climate Change: Comparison of the Cap-and-Trade Provisions in
H.R. 2454 and S. 1733, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
5
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
Table 1. Adaptation Allowances in S. 1733 vs. H.R. 2454
S. 1733
(EPW-reported bill)
% of total allowances
H.R. 2454
(House-passed bill)
% of total allowances
2016
2030
2016
2030
International Adaptationa
1.10
3.71
1.0
4.0
State and Tribal Adaptationb
0.43
1.62
0.90
3.9
Public Health
0.09
0.07
0.10
0.1
Natural Resource Adaptationc
0.87
2.97
1.01
4.0
Source: CRS analysis of S. 1733 (as reported by Senate EPW Committee) and H.R. 2454 (as passed by the
House).
Notes: Percentages reflect the share of total allowances less those for the Strategic Reserve (H.R. 2454) or the
Market Stability Reserve (S. 1733). The amounts of revenue would be contingent on the value of emissions
allowances over time.
a.
For S. 1733, this includes both off-the-top allowances and direct allowances for activities related to
international adaptation.
b.
Both bills include the establishment of a State Climate Change Response (SCCR) Fund in each state, which
could be used to fund state and local government programs for greenhouse gas reduction and climate
adaptation. Specifically concerning adaptation, funds are for state-administered grant programs related to
transportation; water systems mitigation and adaptation partnerships; flood control and response;
agriculture; and other activities. H.R. 2454 does not include several of the water resource provisions.
c.
Natural resource adaptation includes both direct allowances and allowances obtained by auction.
One significant difference between the two pieces of legislation is the distribution of allowances
and proceeds from auction allocations and the subsequent availability of the amounts credited to
certain funds. In the Senate bill, several of the adaptation-related provisions provide that the
amounts in the funds are automatically available to be obligated (i.e., spent), “without further
appropriation,” for specified purposes, programs, and activities. In contrast, the analogous
adaptation provisions in the House bill provide that the amounts in the funds would become
available only by subsequent appropriations. That is, the amounts would not be available
automatically, but instead would need to be provided in subsequent appropriations acts.
H.R. 2454 both allocates allowances directly and creates several funds for the allocation of
proceeds from the sale of allowances. It generally allocates allowances to states and tribes, and
proceeds from the auction of allowances to federal government agencies. Authorizations are
subject to future appropriations. For the adaptation provisions, the House relies on hortatory
language, such as that found in Section 480(b), to support full appropriations for certain natural
resources programs: “... such sums as are deposited in the Natural Resources Climate Change
Fund, and the amounts appropriated for subsection (c) shall be no less than the total estimated
annual deposits in the Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation Fund.”
While the allocations of allowances and of the proceeds from auctions are distributed similarly by
S. 1733, in the Senate bill, in all cases related to adaptation, the auction proceeds for programs or
funds would be automatically available to be obligated (i.e., spent) “without further
appropriation.”14 The provision of funding “without further appropriation” might be
14
See Sec. 211, Sec. 212, and Sec. 370(a)(2)-(6) in Appendix.
Congressional Research Service
6
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
controversial. Comparable language in provisions of the House bill (none related to adaptation
programs, however) has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) as mandatory
spending. 15 Even with mandatory funding, the ultimate funding of specific programs and
activities will in many cases be determined by agency, state, and/or tribal decision-makers.
International Adaptation
Developing countries, especially those that are least developed, and the poorest communities, are
the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. In these vulnerable countries and
communities, the impacts of climate change can pose a direct threat to people’s very survival.
Specific impacts highlighted by the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC 2007)16 include the following.
•
By 2020, yields from the 93% of crop production in Africa that is rain-fed could
be reduced by up to 50%.
•
Worldwide, approximately 20%-30% of plant and animal species are likely to be
at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed
1.5°C -2.5°C.
•
Widespread melting of glaciers and snow cover will reduce melt water from
major mountain ranges (e.g., Hindu Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than 1
billion people currently live.
•
Displacement of an estimated 200 million people due to sudden climate-related
disasters is projected by 2050; it is estimated that in 2008 more than 20 million
people were displaced by sudden climate-related disasters.
•
Increased adverse health impacts and mortality will result from higher frequency
and intensity of climate-related diseases such as heat stroke, malaria, dengue, and
diarrhea.
International assistance for adaptation, especially to help the most vulnerable developing
countries, is one of the major commitments of industrialized countries under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to which the United States is a party.
Adaptation assistance is also one of the major issues under negotiation in an effort to reach
agreement in Copenhagen in December 2009 on international cooperation to address climate
change beyond the year 2012.
Many have asserted that current overseas development aid (ODA) is insufficient to cover the
adaptation needs of developing countries. A variety of international institutions and
nongovernmental organizations have tried to estimate the costs of adaptation for developing
countries and the associated needs for public funding. Figures range from $4 billion to several
hundreds of billions of dollars annually by the year 2030, where definitions and scope of
adaptation activities often account for many of the differences in funding requirements.17 The
15
See H.Rept. 111-137, Table 4, pp. 379-380 .
See http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/
publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg2_report_impacts_adaptation_and_vulnerability.htm.
17
Martin Parry et al., Assessing the Costs of Adaptation to Climate Change: A Review of the UNFCCC and Other
Recent Estimates (London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), August 2009),
(continued...)
16
Congressional Research Service
7
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
World Bank, in an updated study from September 2009, estimates the average annual adaptation
costs from 2010 to 2050 to be between $75 billion to $100 billion annually, 18 while EU leaders
agreed in October 2009 that developing nations would need $150 billion annually by 2020 to
tackle climate change and to deal with its consequences.19 Estimates for climate change
adaptation by sector made by the UNFCCC are given in Table 2.
Table 2. Climate Change Adaptation Cost Estimates by Sector Needed by 2030
(billion dollars per year normalized for 2009)
Global Cost
Developed
Countries
Developing
Countries
Agriculture
14
7
7
Coastal Zones
11
7
4
Human Health
5
not estimated
5
Infrastructure
8-130
6-88
2-41
Water
11
2
9
Total
49-171
22-105
27-66
Sector
Source: UNFCC (2007).
Much of the language in the House and Senate bills is identical, but there are several differences
regarding programs to support international adaptation to climate change. Both bills establish an
International Climate Change Adaptation Program, but S. 1733 would insert “and Global
Security” into the title and makes clear that adaptation assistance should protect and promote U.S.
interests. In H.R. 2454, Section 495 provides explicit authority for a variety of activities and aid
eligible for support, including research, planning, investments, and capacity-building, among
others. S. 1733 does not include a comparable specific list of eligible activities.
Both bills direct the Secretary of State or other designee of the President to distribute funding for
international climate adaptation bilaterally or multilaterally. However, H.R. 2454 requires that
40% to 60% of funding go to multilateral funds or international institutions that meet given
eligibility requirements. H.R. 2454 also specifies that no more than 10% of bilateral assistance
may go to any one country; S. 1733 would not set such limits. The House bill also includes
language directing that resources provided to this program must supplement, not supplant, other
federal, state, or local resources that would similarly support international adaptation activities
(i.e., requiring “additionality” of adaptation assistance). H.R. 2454 also does not explicitly
provide for bilateral programs in other agencies that may have capacity-building, technological,
financing, or other expertise that could be effective in assisting adapting to climate change.
(...continued)
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:KCCoQ47xQdMJ:www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/
11501IIED.pdf+%22Assessing+the+costs+of+adaptation%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a.
18
World Bank, Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change: New Methods and Estimates (consultation
draft), September 2009, http://beta.worldbank.org/climatechange/content/economics-adaptation-climatechange-study-homepage.
19
BBC News, EU Accelerates Climate Funding, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8334146.stm.
Congressional Research Service
8
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
While H.R. 2454 gives responsibilities for oversight of funding distributions to the Secretary of
State (or other presidential designee) and the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID), S. 1733 would give that authority to a Strategic Interagency Board on
International Climate Investment.20
Domestic Adaptation
Improving adaptation in the United States to climate variability and change could include the
following modified or new activities:
•
climate observation and forecast services, such as season to interannual
predictions of weather, or multi-decadal forecasts of temperature, precipitation,
and other climate parameters;
•
research and analysis on climate change impacts, including the identification of
potential risks, benefits, and options for adaptation;
•
development of vulnerability assessments and adaptation strategies within and
across sectors, localities, states, agencies, and sectors;
•
incorporation of climate variability and change into infrastructure planning and
operating procedures;
•
development of a comprehensive climate adaptation strategy that includes crosssectoral and interagency strategies and plans;
•
testing and demonstration of adaptation measures; and
•
evaluation, training, and information-sharing of successful programs and
experiences related to climate adaptation.
In general, S. 1733, as reported by the Senate EPW Committee, and H.R. 2454, as passed by the
House, reflect similar but not identical approaches and identified needs regarding climate change
adaptation. Both bills would expand federal efforts to address adaptation to climate change,
although the federal role is limited in different ways. The differences between the House and
Senate bills reflect differences in priorities, and in determining which entities should be
responsible for developing and implementing adaptation strategies. Neither of the bills is
comprehensive in terms of authorizing an overarching strategy across sectors and levels of
government.
Both bills would establish national “climate services” to develop observational data, climate
modeling, and access to information for federal, state, local, and private decision-makers, to help
them develop and execute adaptation strategies. Both bills apparently place primary responsibility
in the states and Indian tribes for developing most strategies and plans for domestic adaptation,
financially supported by sales of federal greenhouse gas emission allowances. S. 1733 also would
require states to provide a part of their funding to localities for climate change adaptation. Both
the House and Senate bills supplement the state responsibilities with requirements to establish
sector-specific adaptation plans and activities at the federal level, emphasizing adaptation to
protect public health and natural resources.
20
This Board would also oversee programs to promote “supplemental emission reductions,” greenhouse gas
sequestration in forests under Sec. 751.
Congressional Research Service
9
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
S. 1733 and H.R. 2454 provide authorities for domestic adaptation in three major categories:
•
National Climate Change Adaptation Program;
•
National Climate Service; and
•
state and tribal adaptation programs.
National Climate Change Adaptation Program
At the national level, both H.R. 2454 and S. 1733 authorize expansion of the federal role in
adaptation to climate change, although neither of the bills calls for comprehensive assessment and
strategy to coordinate across levels of government. S. 1733, however, would establish a new
national adaptation program. The Senate approach, as outlined in S. 1733, would establish a
broad federal authority by directing the President to establish a National Climate Change
Adaptation Program to increase “the overall effectiveness of Federal climate change adaptation
efforts.” The wording leaves wide discretion to the President, although it is seemingly limited to
the interests and activities of federal agencies. For example, S. 1733 does not explicitly authorize
that this program work with states, localities, and the private sector on cross-cutting strategies or
to coordinate among different entities and stakeholders.
H.R. 2454 does not explicitly provide similar broad authority to the President to establish a
national climate change adaptation program (although some might argue that the President
already has such authority). While earlier versions of the House bill also would have established a
comprehensive federal adaptation program and strategy, these provisions were not included in the
version of H.R. 2454 passed by the House. H.R. 2454, as passed by the House, expands the focus
of the U.S. Global Change Research Program21 (USGCRP) to include climate change adaptation,
vulnerability assessments, and policy analysis. While the coordinating committee for the
USGCRP would expand beyond the current science agencies and research programs to include
agencies representing sectors that have a stake in adapting to climate change, the implication of
the H.R. 2454 language is that federal adaptation efforts remain primarily a research, and not a
programmatic, effort. These and other USGCRP efforts would be led by the White House Office
of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
Although S. 1733 would establish a National Climate Change Adaptation Program, it does not
provide language authorizing funding or allocating emission allowances to the program. (Funding
authorizations and allowance allocations are provided for other adaptation provisions in both
bills.) H.R. 2454 increases authorization for interagency coordination of the USGCRP (not just
for adaptation) to $10 million annually, approximately doubling recent expenditures.
21
H.R. 2454, Part 1, would repeal and replace parts of the existing Global Change Research Act of 1990. This provides
for the continuation and coordination of federal global change research. The U.S. Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP) established under the GCRA of 1990 and continued under both bills has been the primary vehicle in the
United States for domestic and internationally coordinated research on climate change. It has produced world-leading
results in many aspects of climate change science. However, it also has been criticized for not being sufficiently
oriented toward the information needs of potential users, especially decision-makers, as well as for insufficient
interagency coordination and budget prioritization. For more information, see CRS Report RL33817, Climate Change:
Federal Program Funding and Tax Incentives, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
10
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
National Climate Service
Many scientists and decision-makers agree that in order to adapt effectively to climate change,
individuals and institutions need more accurate climate data and information that is specific to
their locations and concerns. There is less agreement on the appropriate authorities, the scope of
federal programs, and how federal programs should be structured and coordinated to implement
plans and activities.
Both S. 1733 and H.R. 2454 would establish national programs to develop and provide access to
information to assist decision-makers in plannning for adaptation to climate change. The National
Climate Service in H.R. 2454 would be established within the USGCRP. The language in S. 1733
is terse and broadly defined, while H.R. 2454 includes much more detail, authorizes several
subsidiary programs, and specifies the organizations to manage them. The bills differ on the
design and location of the National Climate Service (NCS) office. S. 1733 places it within the
Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), while
H.R. 2454 would establish a new interagency entity called the National Climate Service, plus a
NOAA Climate Services Office, but leaves the evaluation of options, and design and location of
the National Climate Service program, to the President. In H.R. 2454, the ultimate relationship of
the NOAA Climate Services Office to the National Climate Service is left to be determined. The
implementation plan of the NCS would be coordinated by the Director of OSTP.
Key recipients of climate services in both bills would be states, localities, and tribal governments,
as well as the public, to enable the development and implementation of adaptation strategies to
reduce vulnerability to climate variability and change. Stakeholders might need training in how to
use more extensive climate information, as well as in dealing effectively with the wide
uncertainty that is likely to continue to surround projections of climate, especially at more refined
temporal and spatial scales.
State Adaptation Programs
Many policies and programs that influence the impacts of climate change on people, businesses,
and natural resources are under the primary authority of states, who may in turn delegate
authorities to local governments and may to some extent coordinate intergovernmental authorities
at the local level. Both H.R. 2454 and S. 1733 appear to leave most authority and responsibility
for addressing climate change adaptation to the states. Both bills do provide a role for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which will facilitate the process of reviewing and
approving state plans and disseminating “lessons learned” across states and tribes.
Both bills would require and help fund state and tribal adaptation programs. The Senate bill
would require states to use the proceeds from the sales of allocated emission allowances
exclusively for listed activities and as included in approved state climate change response plans,
while the House bill identifies uses but provides a broader range of allowable activities that can
be in compliance with approved state and tribal adaptation plans. Both bills use detailed and
substantially identical language specifying the roles that states and tribes must play in developing
and carrying out climate change adaptation plans.22 S. 1733 and H.R. 2454 would provide
22
H.R. 2454 uses “climate adaptation” in these sections, raising the question of whether plans and funded activities are
to include climate variability as well as climate change.
Congressional Research Service
11
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
financial resources to the states and tribes to support their adaptation planning, strategies, and
implementation of certain measures through emission allowance allocations.
Public Health
Potential public health impacts of climate change include a wide range of risks including:
•
a decline in air quality and an increase in allergenic pollen;
•
more extreme temperatures;
•
more frequent wildfires;
•
altered conditions that foster the spread of communicable diseases and vectorborne diseases;
•
events that threaten basic life support systems, such as droughts and floods which
could adversely affect water, sanitation, and food systems.
The public health provisions in S. 1733 are essentially identical to those in H.R. 2454. Both bills
mandate measures to assist health professionals in adapting to the health effects of climate
change, including “the development, implementation, and support of State, regional, tribal and
local preparedness, communication, and response plans to anticipate and reduce the threats of
climate change.” Both bills would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to
develop a national strategy for public health adaptation, based on regular needs assessments and
with input from an advisory board, to be updated every four years. Both bills would establish a
Climate Change Health Protection and Promotion Fund.
The primary difference between the two bills is related to program funding and the use of the
emission allowance allocations. S. 1733 would make funds obtained through revenue generated
by emission allocation allowances available to the Secretary of HHS “without further
appropriation,” while H.R. 2454 makes funds available to the Secretary of HHS subject to further
appropriation.
Natural Resources Adaptation
Adaptation of natural resources to climate change is a difficult concept to define, and determining
a strategy to support it is complicated. To some extent, adaptation is occurring already: Trees in
Alaska now grow much farther north than they did only 30 years ago. Small rodents in the
Rockies are found at higher elevations than in the past. Freshwater marshes are being supplanted
by salt-tolerant species. Fires are removing trees that cannot tolerate repeated droughts, and
beetles that can now complete two generations in a year are speeding destruction of timber.
Ecosystems lose species that are no longer able to find suitable habitat, or are unable to move
rapidly enough to find it. Many of these changes are not considered desirable, and some
constitute serious threats from an economic, public health, or aesthetic standpoint. Approaches by
many parties have focused on lessening the negative effects of climate change, but more recently,
planners have begun to plant different trees, map coastal areas to determine changes in tides and
resulting vegetation, consider likely future ranges of species, and examine whether current use
land patterns will permit species to reach more suitable habitats.
Congressional Research Service
12
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
Both the House-passed and Senate-reported bills attempt to encourage federal and state strategies
that can be adopted to support the resilience of species and the ecosystems on which they depend
in the face of relatively rapid climate change. Within the provisions relating to natural resources,
there are only a few major differences between the two bills. Both bills provide for federal, state,
tribal, and local programs. Considerable emphasis at both levels is on planning, and within plans,
on a tremendous number of factors to be developed, researched, or evaluated. In addition, both
bills would create or facilitate the dissemination of new information sources. Both create a new
National Climate Service, for example.
The natural resource adaptation activities in both bills would be funded through emission
allowances, either through direct allocations or through revenues generated via auctioned
allowances. The Senate bill would include a provision for land acquisition under the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), with funding available “without further appropriations,” as
has been proposed several times in the past. Such LWCF proposals have had considerable support
from the scientific and environmental communities to protect rare ecosystems and/or recreational
opportunities. However, opponents of LWCF—especially of LWCF proposals not subjected to
annual appropriations oversight—have argued that the supervision of the appropriations process
is necessary to protect property rights and landowners.23 In addition, those that seek to limit
federal spending in general may argue against allocation of money to any of the funds in S. 1733
in the absence of annual control by the appropriations and budget committees. H.R. 2454, on the
other hand, requires that funds for natural resource adaptation programs be made available subject
to annual appropriations.
In addition, both bills mandate the creation of new programs to disseminate data via geospatial
information systems (GIS). While some data concerning wildlife already exist in GIS databases
around the country, and considerable cooperation already exists among many agencies and
academia, federal agencies and other levels of government might find the data useful for a variety
of additional purposes, such as finding suitable locations for energy development and
transportation infrastructure. Moreover, many see further coordination of geospatial data as
essential for interagency and cross-sector coordination and planning.24
In both the House and Senate bills, there is little consideration of soils outside of carbon
sequestration, biofuels, and alternative energy in relation to adaptation. Agricultural adaptation is
also essentially absent from both bills. For example, at least six agencies within DOI are
mentioned specifically, as is NOAA within the Department of Commerce, but within USDA, only
the Forest Service figures prominently. USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
is not mentioned in either bill, even though the agency’s major responsibilities involve preventing
soil erosion, protecting watersheds, and cooperating at multiple levels of government to control
runoff and ease the effects of drought.
In addition, S. 1733 would address climate-change-exacerbated wildfire threats in several ways. It
would define fire-ready communities, authorize cost-share grants to such communities, and direct
cost-share agreements to encourage states and communities to become fire-ready. It also would
23
For example, property rights were a major issue in certain conservation bills in the 106th Congress; see out-of-print
CRS Report RL30444, Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) (H.R. 701) and a Related Initiative in the 106th
Congress, by (name redacted) and (name redacted) (available from (name redacted)).
24
For a discussion of the current status of geospatial research and coordination efforts, see CRS Report R40625,
Geospatial Information and Geographic Information Systems (GIS): Current Issues and Future Challenges, by (name
redacted).
Congressional Research Service
13
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
direct mapping of fire risk in priority areas for fuel reduction treatments. Wildfires are not
covered in the House-passed bill.
Water-Related Adaptation
Climate change is anticipated to affect water availability and use regionally, and may alter the
frequency or intensity of water-related hazards, such as droughts and floods.25 Potential impacts
of climate change are of great interest to utility officials, federal agencies, and others concerned
with water management and use. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), higher water temperatures, increased precipitation intensity, and longer periods of low
flows will exacerbate many forms of water pollution, with impacts on water system reliability and
operating costs, human health, and ecosystems. Similarly, climate change affects the function and
operation of existing water infrastructure, as well as water management practices. 26 Temperature
change drives other changes in natural environmental processes that, in turn, affect the quality
and quantity of water resources. A range of impacts are anticipated, although they are likely to
vary by region, including warmer water, precipitation changes, loss of reservoir storage and
snowpack, sea level rise, increases in storm intensity, increased risk of flood damage, water
treatment and distribution challenges, increased wastewater treatment needs and costs due to
heavier runoff, and increased demand in response to heat waves and dry spells.
Water-related adaptation is likely to incorporate a range of measures: demand management and
conservation, difficult land use choices in at-risk areas, investments in infrastructure, and aquatic
ecosystem protection and restoration. Adapting to climate’s water-related effects presents
significant challenges, in part because of the wide variety of entities involved in managing and
using water,27 and the ecosystems and species that depend on its availability, variability, and
quality. Responsibilities for, and funding of, different water adaptation measures are at issue as
Congress considers climate change legislation.
S. 1733 would include provisions specific to water-related adaptation; no similar provisions are
included in H.R. 2454.28 To assist adaptation by water utilities, S. 1733 (in Division A) would
25
Not only are extreme events a concern, but also of concern are anticipated changes in average streamflows,
groundwater recharge rates, and timing and depth of snowpack. Ocean, coastal, and marine adaptation issues are
generally not discussed in this section, except as they relate to § 384 and flooding and shoreline protection.
26
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability,
Chapter 3, Freshwater Resources and Their Management, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment
Report, Cambridge, UK, 2007, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/
publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg2_report_impacts_adaptation_and_vulnerability.htm.
27
Water-related functions are shared by all levels of government and the private sector. Local governments and other
public and private entities (e.g., water utilities) are largely responsible for municipal water infrastructure (e.g., drinking
water, wastewater, stormwater) and flood damage reduction measures. The states generally allocate water within their
jurisdiction. The federal government generally participates in water projects that are considered to be in the national
interest (e.g., navigation to support commerce, dams and related irrigation to promote settlement of western states,
participation in the construction of congressionally authorized flood protection projects). Federal water activities are
spread over numerous federal agencies.
28
Both S. 1733 (as reported by the Senate EPW Committee) and H.R. 2454 also include other water-specific
provisions, which are not discussed herein because they are addressed in the bill not as part of adaptation, but through
greenhouse gas reduction programs. These provisions are focused on the energy efficiency gained by improving water
efficiency, and include §§ 141-143 of S. 1733 and §§ 215-217 of H.R. 2454. Also, § 157 of S. 1733, which would
require a study of risk-based policies and programs (including flood insurance), is related to water-related adaptation.
Other bills, such as S. 1462, also address (primarily through studies) water-related issues that may arise related to the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
14
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
establish a research program to assist drinking water utilities (Section 211) and a program of
grants to states and Indian tribes for water system adaptation projects (Section 381). S. 1733
would also include two other water-specific adaptation provisions—Section 382, which would
establish a grants program to states and Indian tribes for adapting to climate-related flood
impacts, and Section 384, which would provide assistance to coastal (including Great Lakes)
states for adapting to climate change. No specific provisions were included for drought or for
adaptation of agricultural or energy sector water use to changed water resource availability and
quality. Sections 381, 382, and 384 would be funded through the state climate change response
account (Section 210 of Division B); Section 211 of Division A includes only an authorization of
appropriations. These provisions focus to a greater extent on adapting to water quantity
challenges of climate change (e.g., ensuring utilities’ reliable delivery of water supply) than water
quality (e.g., changes in dissolved oxygen levels or water chemistry resulting from warmer
temperatures).
Water-related adaptation planning and measures also are covered under broader provisions, most
notably federal assistance for state adaptation efforts, federal research and assessment, and natural
resources adaptation efforts by designated federal agencies. The bills would provide funding for
select federal agencies to undertake aquatic ecosystem restoration activities and other waterrelated natural resource adaptation actions using allocations established for natural resources
adaptation;29 otherwise, they do not specifically allocate funding for federal agencies to undertake
climate change adaptation for water infrastructure (e.g., dams, levees, navigation improvements)
or other water-related programs under their jurisdiction.30 The bills would direct federal water
resource agencies, including the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers, to
adapt their plans, programs, and activities. Because most water resource projects typically receive
project-specific authorization from Congress, it is unclear how much authority and funding these
agencies would have to implement adaptation actions.
S. 1733 and H.R. 2454 largely focus their federal natural resources adaptation provisions on the
agencies responsible for managing and protecting water resources, such as the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, not the
agencies working with the users that depend on water resources. For example, neither U.S.
Department of Agriculture agencies (e.g., Natural Resources Conservation Service) nor
Department of Energy entities (e.g., power marketing administrations) are included. Agriculture,
particularly in the West, is the largest consumer of water. The energy sector also withdraws
significant quantities during extraction, processing, and generation. Water-related independent
entities, like the Tennessee Valley Authority, also are not specifically addressed in the natural
resources adaptation provisions. One exception is that S. 1733 would include the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the natural resources adaptation panel proposed in
the bill (Section 365). FEMA manages flood hazard mitigation programs and the national flood
insurance program; FEMA is not included in a similar provision of H.R. 2454 (Section 475).
(...continued)
energy sector, including water use of lower carbon dioxide-emitting electricity technologies.
29
Natural resources adaptation funding is discussed in the previous section. Whether the funds made available by these
bills for aquatic ecosystem restoration would cover the anticipated cost of adapting to climate change is uncertain
because reliable estimates of these costs are not available.
30
Reliable estimates of the federal water resources infrastructure costs associated with adaptation are not available.
Congressional Research Service
15
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
In summary, the water-specific provisions of S. 1733, which have no comparable provisions in
H.R. 2454, would be focused largely on issues arising from water quantity changes (e.g., reduced
municipal water supplies, increased flooding, higher sea levels). While broad natural resource
provisions of the bills include water resource agencies and funding for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, less attention is given in S. 1733 or H.R. 2454 to the adaptation of federal water
resources infrastructure to changes in water resource quantity and quality; similarly, while S.
1733 would address some of the adaptation challenges faced by municipal water providers, little
attention is given in either bill to managing adaptation in two of the largest water use sectors—
agriculture and energy.
Congressional Research Service
16
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
Appendix. Comparison of Adaptation-Related Provisions in H.R. 2454 (as
Passed by the House) and S. 1733 (as Reported by the Senate EPW Committee)
S. 1733
(as reported by the Senate EPW Committee)
H.R. 2454
(as passed by the House)
Comments
INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION
Sec. 324. International Climate Change
Adaptation and Global Security Program. The
Secretary of State, consulting with heads of other
agencies, is required to establish an International
Climate Change Adaptation and Global Security
Program.
After consulting with heads of agencies, the
Secretary of State or other Presidential designee
directs the distribution of funding to assist
vulnerable countries and their populations within
them, and for programs that promote U.S. interests
by supporting adaptation to climate change. Funding
may be provided bilaterally, and/or through
multilateral or international institutions under the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC).
Sec. 493. International Climate Change Adaptation
Program. The Secretary of State, consulting with heads
of other agencies, is required to establish an International
Climate Change Adaptation Program.
Assistance must supplement, not supplant, other
resources for similar activities.
After consulting with heads of agencies, the Secretary of
State or other Presidential designee directs the
distribution of allowances to assist vulnerable countries
and populations within them, by supporting adaptation to
climate change. Funding may be provided bilaterally, and/or
through multilateral or international institutions under the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC).
Sec. 494. Multilateral or international recipients must
receive 40% to 60% of distributions, and must meet
eligibility and reporting requirements, overseen by the
Secretary of State.
Sec. 495. Bilateral Assistance. USAID may carry out
programs and give allowances to any private or public
group to assist with the development of adaptation plans
and projects to assist the most vulnerable developing
countries, support investments, research programs and
activities, and encourage engagement of local communities.
No more than 10% of the allowances distributed for
bilateral assistance in a year may support activities in any
one country. The USAID Administrator must provide for
consultation and disclosure of information to stakeholders
regarding any programs or activities carried out under this
section.
CRS-17
Language in the two bills is nearly identical on
establishment of the program and distribution of
allowances/assistance.
S. 1733 provides for “additionality” of resources as
demanded by international guidance for accounting for
financial commitments under the Climate Convention.
On uses of assistance, the two bills are similar, but S. 1733
omits much of the detail and prescriptive language
contained in H.R. 2454. Specific differences include:
•
S. 1733 distributes funds while H.R. 2454
distributes allowances;
•
S. 1733 sets no limits on the portion of
assistance to distribute multilaterally, while H.R.
2454 requires 40-60% go to multilateral funds or
mechanisms.
•
H.R. 2454 sets eligibility criteria for multilateral
funds or institutions to receive allowances
•
H.R. 2454 authorizes USAID to provide
assistance with specified purposes, limited to no
more than 10% to any single country in a year.
•
H.R. 2454 prescribes priorities and conditions
for USAID’s use of assistance.
Content of the reports and reviews also differs. S. 1733
allows discretion in bilateral programs to involve any
agency. H.R. 2454 does not explicitly provide for bilateral
programs in agencies other than USAID, though other
agencies may have existing or potential expertise and
programs that could support international capacitybuilding, technological, financing or other needs related to
adapting to climate change.
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
S. 1733
(as reported by the Senate EPW Committee)
H.R. 2454
(as passed by the House)
Comments
Sec. 325. Evaluation and Reports. Directs the
Board to establish a system to monitor and evaluate
the international climate change assistance. Reports
to Congress required within one year of enactment,
within three years of enactment, and then triennially,
to review needs and opportunities for further
investment in developing countries.
Sec. 495(d). Annual Reports. The USAID
Administrator must report to the President and to
Congress within 180 days after enactment and annually
thereafter on the following: the extent of adverse climate
change impacts in the most vulnerable developing
countries; the potentially destabilizing effects of climate
change affecting U.S. national security; how emission
allowances were distributed and recommendations for
future years; and the status of international cooperation.
Both bills require reviews and evaluations of international
assistance for adaptation, as well as reports to Congress.
H.R. 2454 is more detailed and prescriptive regarding how
to monitor and evaluate the programs, and content of the
reports.
Sec. 495(e). Monitoring and Evaluation. The
Administrator of USAID must establish performance goals,
indicators, and other means to evaluate, inter alia, the
degree to which local communities were informed of and
engaged in, activities; the impacts of adaptation activities;
and recommendations for adjustments.
Sec. 207. International Climate Change
Adaptation and Global Security. Directs
allocation of allowances to climate change
adaptation. The quantity of allocation is specified in
Sec. 771(a)(14):
Sec. 782(n) International Adaptation. Directs the
EPA Administrator to allocate emission allowances for
international adaptation for:
2012-2021: 1.0% of annual allowances;
2022-2026: 2.0% of annual allowances;
2022-2026: 2.0% of annual allowances;
2027–2050: 4.0% of allowances.
2012-2021: 1.0% of annual allowances;
Almost identical allocations of allowances, except for the
latest period of 2027-2050, with a 5% distribution under S.
1733 versus the 4% under H.R. 2454. The rising
percentages of allowances may correspond with predicted
increases in climate change, and associated accelerating
adaptation needs.
2027-2050: 5.0% of allowances.
DOMESTIC CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION
Sec. 341. National Climate Change
Adaptation Program. The President must
establish a National Climate Change Adaptation
Program within the United States Global Research
Program (USGCRP) to increase effectiveness of
federal adaptation efforts.
CRS-18
No similar provision.
H.R. 2454 and S. 1733 take different approaches to
adaptation to climate change at the national scale. S 1733
directs the President to establish a National Climate
Change Adaptation Program, leaving broad discretion as
to the new program’s organization, strategy, contents, etc.
In contrast, H.R. 2454 primarily expands the existing U.S.
Global Change Research Program more explicitly to
emphasize the effects of climate change, and to add impact
and adaptation-related research, new observational,
research, and to improve information based decisionmaking efforts (See Sec. 451 below).
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
S. 1733
(as reported by the Senate EPW Committee)
No similar provision
H.R. 2454
(as passed by the House)
Comments
Sec. 451.Global Change Research and Data
Management. Repeals and replaces Titles I and III of the
existing Global Change Research Act (GCRA) of 1990
(P.L. 101-606; 15 U.S.C.2921 et seq.). Directs the
President to establish an interagency coordinating
committee, a U.S. Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP), a National Global Change Research and
Development Plan, budget coordination, Vulnerability
Assessments, Policy Assessments, and annual reports to
Congress. It also establishes a Global Change Research
Information Exchange and interagency data management,
and requires reports on ice sheet melt and sea level rise,
and on implications of hurricane frequency and intensity
patterns. Establishes the Office of Science and Technology
Policy as the “lead agency” and authorizes $10 million
annually for FY2009-FY2014 for “interagency program
activities.”
The GCRA of 1990 established an interagency
coordinating committee and the U.S. Global Change
Research Program (USGCRP). H.R. 2454 provisions are in
many aspects similar or identical to those in the GCRA,
but more expansive. It leaves in place Title II of the GCRA,
which covers international global change research
cooperation.
In Sec. 451(5), the National Global Change Research and
Assessment Plan must, inter alia, catalog types of
information needed by decision makers to develop policies
to reduce vulnerabilities to global change, and provide for
economic, demographic, technological, and other
information to meet the needs of decision-makers.
Sec. 157. Study of Risk-Based Programs
Addressing Vulnerable Areas. The
Administrator of the EPA, or other presidentiallydesignated heads of federal agencies, must conduct a
study that reviews and assesses federal pre-disaster
mitigation, emergency response, and flood insurance
policies and programs affecting areas vulnerable to
climate change; describe better strategies to address
CRS-19
Compared to the existing management of the USGCRP,
H.R. 2454 would make the White House Office of Science
and Technology the lead agency. To the 1990 purpose is
added “observation” and “outreach” activities, with an
emphasis on “effects” of global change. The Global Change
Research Program is (re)established in para. (4) “to
respond to the information needs of communities and
decision-makers and to provide periodic assessment of the
vulnerability of the United States and other regions....”
Other provisions, however, do not maintain this more
expansive language, confining the provisions to “research”
(e.g., for interagency coordination). In congruity, the bill
would expand participation in the interagency coordinating
committee to include representation not just of science
programs but also resource management and climate
mitigation agencies and programs.
Sec. 451(8) requires a Policy Assessment within one year
of enactment and every four years thereafter by the
National Academy of Public Administration and the
National Academy of Sciences, to cover both climate
change mitigation and adaptation options.
Unlike the existing program, the Office of Science and
Technology Policy is made the “lead agency.” OSTP does
not have existing authority to “allocate funds” to agencies.
Sec. 451(7). Requires a Vulnerability Assessment within
one year of enactment and every five years thereafter,
with a time frame of the subsequent 25 to 100 years.
Assessment is to cover the United States and other world
regions, and multiple sectors and categories of impacts.
While H.R. 2454 requires comprehensive and periodic
assessments of vulnerability to climate change, S. 1733
authorizes one report, confined to specific types of
disaster (not necessarily due to climate change). The S.
1733 study is a one-time requirement aimed at evaluating
expected cost savings from improving inter-agency and
inter-governmental coordination rather than a broad
vulnerability assessment as authorized in H.R. 2454.
In H.R. 2454, the relationship of the Global Change
Research Information Exchange to the new National
Climate Services (Sec. 452) and the new Climate Service
Office in NOAA (Sec. 452(e)) is not defined, and is to be
established or designated by the President.
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
S. 1733
(as reported by the Senate EPW Committee)
vulnerabilities, and whether existing federal policies
support state response and adaptation goals in Sec.
211. The studies also must identify and recommend
how to resolve contradicting programs that address
areas vulnerable to climate change, and identify
annual cost savings that could be achieved with
recommended strategies. Report is due to Congress
within two years of enactment
H.R. 2454
(as passed by the House)
Comments
Sec. 342. Climate Services. The Secretary of
Commerce acting through the Administrator of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) must establish a National Climate Service
within NOAA. The National Climate Service is to:
Sec. 452. National Climate Service. Establishes a
National Climate Service (NCS), and defines the activities
to be undertaken within the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to:
Both bills would establish a new Climate Service program.
S. 1733 places the National Climate Service within NOAA.
H.R. 2454 leaves evaluation of options, and design and
location of the national program to the President while
also establishing an office within NOAA.
•
•
develop climate information, data,
forecasts and warnings at national and
regional scales; and
distribute information related to climate
impacts to state, local, and tribal
governments and the public to help
develop and implement strategies to
reduce vulnerabilities to climate variability
and change.
•
advance understanding of climate variability and
change at different scales;
•
provide forecasts, warnings, and other
information on weather and climate.
Its goal is to meet the needs of decisionmakers in federal
agencies; state, local, and tribal governments; regional
entities; and other stakeholders and users, for information
related to climate variability and change. Requires a report
to Congress within two years of enactment to describe
institutions and propose how to establish a National
Climate Service.
Requires the Undersecretary of NOAA to establish a
Climate Services Office within NOAA, and to establish a
Clearinghouse of Federal Climate Service Products and
Links to Federal Agencies Providing Climate Services.
Requires a number of additional programs and services to
support climate change information and adaptation
planning.
Sec. 452(m) specifies that nothing in Sec. 452 authorizes
requirements for states, tribes or local governments to
develop adaptation or response plans or to take any other
actions in response to variations in climate that may
impose a financial burden to such governments.
CRS-20
In H.R. 2454, the relationship of the National Climate
Service, or the new Climate Service Office in NOAA, to
the Global Change Research Program and the Global
Change Research Information Exchange is not made
explicit.
“Climate” and “climate variability,” as distinct from
“weather,” are not defined, and have been inconsistently
used in some proposals for national climate services. Sec.
452(b)(2) explicitly calls for “weather” forecasts, warnings
and other information.
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
S. 1733
(as reported by the Senate EPW Committee)
H.R. 2454
(as passed by the House)
Comments
Sec. 210. State Programs for Greenhouse Gas
Reduction and Climate Adaptation. Within 2
years of enactment, the EPA Administrator or other
presidential designee(s) must promulgate regulations
to implement this section.
Sec. 453. State Programs to Build Resilience to
Climate Change Impacts. Sec. 453(b) Within two
years of enactment, the EPA Administrator or other
presidential designee(s) must promulgate regulations to
implement this section.
Requirement to promulgate implementing regulations is
identical.
Of each vintage year’s allowances specified in Sec.
771(a) for state adaptation, the EPA Administrator
must reserve:
From 2011-2049, the EPA Administrator or other federal
agency head(s) designated by the President must distribute
allowances to states and tribes annually. States receive
allowances on the basis of (1) population and (2) the ratio
of each state’s per capita income relative to that of the
United States as a whole.
STATE AND TRIBAL PROGRAMS
•
10% for coastal and Great Lake States, for
purposes in Sec. 384 (see below);
•
10% for states for wildfire programs for
purposes in Sec. 383 (see below) ;
•
at least 1% for Indian tribes, of which at
least 18% must go to Alaska Native
Villages;
and distribute the remainder of allowances for State
government programs for GHG reduction and
climate adaptation. Allowances or proceeds from
auction of allowances are deposited into State
Climate Change Response (SCCR) accounts.
From 2011-2049, the EPA Administrator or other
federal agency head(s) designated by the President
must distribute allowances for the subsequent
calendar year to states and tribes annually. States
receive allowances generally on the basis of (1)
population and (2) the ratio of each State’s per
capita income relative to that of the United States as
a whole.
States must distribute at least 12.5% of the proceeds
deposited to SCCR accounts to local governments
to address specific adverse impacts of climate change
(listed below).
States and tribes shall use the allowance proceeds
exclusively to develop and implement policies,
programs or measures that reduce GHG emissions
CRS-21
Tribes receive 1% of allowances, distributed competitively
based on their adaptation plan or project proposals.
Tribes with adaptation plans have priority in distribution.
Uses of allowances are listed, with priority being given to
reduce flood risks.
Allowances must be sold within one year, with proceeds
deposited into the State Energy and Environment
Development (SEED) accounts.
States the intention of Congress that funds provided
should supplement, not replace, existing sources of
funding.
S. 1733 directs the EPA Administrator to reserve
percentages of allowances allocated to state adaptation
programs for specific states and uses, as well as tribes. The
remainder is distributed to states and tribes by formulae.
H.R. 2454 does not include these “reserve” paragraphs,
beginning directly with distributions of allowances.
The formulae and methods for determining each State’s
allowances are identical in H.R. 2454 and S. 1733, although
the language varies slightly.
In S. 1733, the initial combined State Climate Change
Response and Transportation Fund in Treasury has been
eliminated and replaced with separate funds for
transportation and state climate change responses.
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
S. 1733
(as reported by the Senate EPW Committee)
or build resilience to climate change via activities
listed under Sec. 221(g)(2). Funds must be used in
accordance with approved state or tribe climate
change response plans, and only for specific
activities, to address:
H.R. 2454
(as passed by the House)
Comments
•
•
water system partnerships (Sec. 381);
flood control, protection, prevention and
response programs (Sec. 382);
•
impacts on water quality, supply or
reliability of state-owned or operated
water systems (Sec. 381(d));
•
recycling (Sec. 154);
•
adverse climate change impacts on
agricultural or ranching activities;
•
projects to restore abandoned mine lands
that increase carbon sequestration or
reduce GHG emissions while providing
other benefits;
•
adverse impacts on air pollution or air
quality;
•
measures to reduce GHG emission that
decrease other air pollutant emissions as
well.
At least 12.5% of allowance proceeds in SCCR
accounts must be distributed to local governments
for activities listed under (2) above.
States and localities shall ensure that funds are used
to assist categories of “socially and economically
vulnerable populations.”
States the intention of Congress that funds provided
should supplement, not replace, existing sources of
funding.
Sec. 210(h). State and Tribal Response Plans.
In order to receive funds, states and tribes must
have approved adaptation plans. Beginning with
vintage year 2012, states must have approved State
climate change response plans to meet regulations
to be promulgated under Sec. 221(b), with
elaboration of content under Sec. 221(g). The state
CRS-22
Sec. 453. State Programs to Build Resilience to
Climate Change Impacts. In order to receive funds,
states and tribes must have approved adaptation plans.
Beginning with vintage year 2015, states and tribes must
have approved State climate change response plans to
meet regulations to be promulgated under Sec. 453(b),
with elaboration of content under Sec. 453(f). State and
Language in the two bills is similar, except:
Allocation of allowances under this section are contingent
on approved state adaptation plans by 2012 under S. 1733
and by 2015 under H.R. 2454.
S. 1733 additionally specifies that states must consider and
undertake a longer list of requirements, where
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
S. 1733
(as reported by the Senate EPW Committee)
climate change response plans must, at a minimum,
assess and prioritize vulnerabilities; identify and
prioritize cost-effective projects, programs, and
measures to mitigate and build resilience to current
and predicted climate; assess potential carbon
reductions by changing land management policies;
ensure that the state consider and undertakes a
variety of listed types of initiatives; consider impacts
on socially and economically vulnerable populations;
use pre-disaster mitigation, emergency response,
and public insurance programs; and be consistent
with federal conservation and environmental laws
and try to avoid environmental degradation. Plans
must be revised and resubmitted every five years.
H.R. 2454
(as passed by the House)
Tribal climate change response plans must, at a minimum,
assess and prioritize vulnerabilities; identify and prioritize
cost-effective projects, programs, and measures to
mitigate and build resilience to current and predicted
climate; assess potential carbon reductions by changing
land management policies; ensure that the state considers
and undertakes a variety of listed types of initiatives; and
be consistent with federal conservation and environmental
laws and try to avoid environmental degradation. Plans
must be revised and resubmitted every five years.
appropriate, protect forested land using science-based
ecological restoration practices, and consider impacts on
socially and economically vulnerable populations.
S. 1733 allows adaptation funds to be used for carbon
sequestration on abandoned mine lands.
Reporting and enforcement language is identical in both
bills. In addition, S. 1733 has an auditing provision that
gives authority to the EPA Administrator or other
presidential designee, to audit or review implementation
and compliance of state plans. No auditing provision
exists in H.R. 2454.
In both bills, the EPA Administrator must take into
account lessons learned, avoid duplication, and coordinate
with state natural resources adaptation plans.
Tribal climate change response plans have same
requirements as the states, but may vary if necessary
to account for special circumstances of Indian tribes.
PUBLIC HEALTH
Sec. 353. National Strategic Action Plan.
Requires the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (HHS) to prepare a national strategic action
plan to prepare for and respond to public health
impacts of climate change in the United States and
other nations, in consultation with relevant agencies
and stakeholders. The plan must be revised by 2014
and every four years thereafter. Requires a public
health needs assessment from the National Research
Council and the Institute of Medicine within one
year of enactment.
Sec. 463. National Strategic Action Plan. Similar to
Senate bill except gives authority to conduct and fund
research to the Secretary of HHS, directed by the
Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, and the head of any other appropriate federal
agency.
Sec. 354. Advisory board. Establishes an
advisory board to provide scientific and technical
advice to the Secretary of Health and Human
Services on domestic and international impacts of
climate change on human health.
Sec. 464. Advisory Board.
Sec. 355. Reports. Describes the requirement for
reports on a needs assessment, due within one year
of enactment, and on climate change health
Sec. 465. Reports.
CRS-23
Comments
Essentially identical to Senate bill.
Essentially identical to Senate bill.
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
S. 1733
(as reported by the Senate EPW Committee)
protection and promotion, due by July 1, 2013 and
every 4 years thereafter.
H.R. 2454
(as passed by the House)
Comments
Sec. 356. Definitions. Provided definitions for
health impact assessment, national strategic action
plan, and secretary.
Sec. 466. Definitions.
Sec. 211. Climate Change Health Protection
and Promotion Fund. Establishes in the Treasury
a Climate Change Health and Protection Fund which
will receive revenue from the auctioning of 0.1% of
each year’s emission allowances. The funds are
available “without further appropriation” and should
supplement existing sources of funding. The
Secretary of HHS may distribute funds from the
Fund to federal agencies, other governments, or
other entities, to carry out any of the provisions of
the health and climate change provisions in this
subtitle.
Sec. 782(l)(2). Domestic Adaptation. Directs the EPA
Administrator to allocate 0.1% of emission allowances for
the Climate Change Health Protection and Promotion
Fund (Sec. 467) in 2012 and thereafter. Availability of funds
would be subject to further appropriation.
Language in the two bills is similar except:
Sec. 361. Purposes. Purposes of this subpart are
to establish an integrated program that responds to
climate change, including ocean acidification,
drought, flooding, and wildfire, and to provide
financial support and incentives for these activities.
Sec. 471. Purposes.
Senate bill makes specific mention of drought, flooding,
and wildfire; House bill does not.
Sec. 362. Natural Resources Climate Change
Adaptation Policy. States that federal policy is
“to use all practicable means to protect, restore, and
conserve natural resources so that natural resources
become more resilient, adapt to, and withstand the
ongoing and expected impacts of climate change,
including, where applicable, ocean acidification,
drought, flooding, and wildfire.”
Sec. 472. Natural Resources Climate Change
Adaptation Policy. States that federal policy is “to use
all practicable means and measures to protect, restore,
and conserve natural resources to enable them to become
more resilient, adapt to, and withstand the impacts of
climate change and ocean acidification.”
Essentially the same except the Senate bill specifically
mentions drought, flooding, and wildfire, while the House
bill does not.
Sec. 363. Definitions. Defines 15 terms used in
the subpart: account, administrators, board, center,
coastal state, corridors, ecological processes,
habitat, Indian tribe, natural resources, natural
resources adaptation, panel resilience/resilient, state,
and strategy.
Sec. 473. Definitions. Defines nine terms used in the
subpart,: coastal state, corridors, ecological processes,
habitat, Indian tribe, natural resources, natural resources
adaptation, resilience/resilient, and state.
Neither bill includes the consideration of air and soil
resources in the definition of natural resources. In
addition, House bill definition of “natural resources”
mentions land and water while the Senate bill omits these
terms.
Essentially identical to Senate bill.
Funds are available to Secretary of HHS subject to further
appropriation in H.R. 2454, while S. 1733 makes funds
available “without further appropriation” or fiscal year
limitation,
NATURAL RESOURCES ADAPTATION
CRS-24
Similar to Senate bill.
In the definition of “ecological processes, both bills contain
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
S. 1733
(as reported by the Senate EPW Committee)
H.R. 2454
(as passed by the House)
Comments
the phrase “biological, chemical, or physical interaction,”
but it should be noted that these processes, are not
mutually exclusive.
Sec. 364. Council on Environmental Quality.
Directs Chair of the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) to advise the President on developing
and implementing a Natural Resources Climate
Change Adaptation Strategy and federal natural
resource agency adaptation plans, and to coordinate
such activities.
Sec. 474. Council on Environmental Quality.
Essentially identical to Senate bill.
Sec. 365. Natural Resources Climate Change
Adaptation Panel. Establishes a Natural
Resources Climate Change Adaptation Panel as a
forum for coordinating development and
implementation of the federal adaptation strategy.
The Chairperson of CEQ is to chair the Panel. The
Panel must be established within 90 days of
enactment of the law, and include NOAA, USFS,
NPS, FWS, BLM, USGS, Reclamation, BIA, EPA,
Army COE, CEQ, FEMA, and other federal agencies
with jurisdiction over natural resources, as
determined by the President.
Sec. 475. Natural Resources Climate Change
Adaptation Panel.
Sec. 366. Natural Resources Climate Change
Adaptation Strategy. Describes the climate
change adaptation strategy to be developed by the
panel established in Sec. 365. The strategy must be
developed within one year of enactment of the
subpart, and must be reviewed and revised every
five years. The strategy must be based on the best
available science; must be developed in cooperation
with states, Indian tribes, other federal agencies,
local governments, conservation organizations,
scientists, and other stakeholders; and must be open
for public comment. The purpose of the strategy is
to protect, restore, and conserve natural resources
to enable them to become more resilient, adapt to,
and withstand the impacts of climate change, and to
identify opportunities to mitigate ongoing and
expected impacts.
Sec. 476. Natural Resources Climate Change
Adaptation Strategy.
CRS-25
Similar to Senate bill.
Similar to Senate bill.
The only difference is that the Senate bill includes the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on the
Adaptation Panel, while the House bill does not.
Neither bill includes the USDA’s Natural Resources
Conservation Service specifically on the Adaptation Panel,
although President has discretion to add other agencies.
Differences are minor and include multiple references to
“ongoing” and “expected” or “expanding” impacts in the
Senate bill, while the House bill regularly refers to “ocean
acidification” in concert with climate change.
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
S. 1733
(as reported by the Senate EPW Committee)
H.R. 2454
(as passed by the House)
Sec. 367. Natural Resources Adaptation
Science and Information. Directs the
Administrators to establish a Natural Resource
Climate Change Adaptation Science and Information
Program, to be led by the USGS National Climate
Change and Wildlife Center (established by this
section) and the National Climate Service in NOAA.
Program is to provide technical assistance, conduct
and sponsor research, and provide research,
monitoring tools, and information. Secretaries of
Commerce and the Interior must conduct initial and
then five-year surveys of natural resources impacts
of climate change; monitoring of baselines and
trends; and stakeholder needs for monitoring,
research, and decision tools. Establishes a Science
Advisory Board to advise Secretaries on impacts and
scientific strategies and mechanisms, and to identify
and recommend research priorities.
Sec. 477. Natural Resource Adaptation Science
and Information.
Sec. 368. Federal Natural Resource Agency
Adaptation Plans. Requires each federal agency
represented on the Natural Resources Climate
Change Adaptation Panel to complete a Natural
Resources Climate Change Adaptation Plan,
consistent with the policy under Sec. 472, within one
year of enactment. After approval by the President,
adaptation plans must be submitted to specified
congressional committees (e.g., House Natural
Resources; Senate Energy and Natural Resources;
Environment and Public Works; and any others with
agency jurisdiction) within 30 days of approval.
Sec. 478. Federal natural resource agency
adaptation plans.
Sec. 369. State natural resources adaptation
plans. Requires states to prepare a state natural
resources climate change adaptation plan to be
eligible to receive funds under Sec. 370. The plan
must include priorities, programs, and measures of
effectiveness, and must be reviewed and updated
every five years.
Sec. 479. State natural resources adaptation plans.
Sec. 370. Natural Resources Climate Change
Adaptation Account. Overall, section distributes
Sec. 480. Natural Resources Climate Change
Adaptation Fund. Overall, section distributes
CRS-26
Similar to the Senate bill.
Similar to the Senate bill, though Senate Environment and
Public Works is not mentioned specifically.
Similar to the Senate bill.
Comments
Minor differences include multiple references to “ongoing”
and “expected” or “expanding” impacts in the Senate bill,
while the House bill regularly refers to “ocean
acidification” in concert with climate change, where the
Senate bill specifically also mentions drought, flooding, and
wildfire.
Senate bill requires the agency action plans to include “any
changes in decisionmaking processes necessary to increase
the ability of resources under the jurisdiction of the
department or agency and, to the maximum extent
practicable, resources under the jurisdiction of other
departments and agencies that may be significantly affected
by decision of the department or agency, to become more
resilient, adapt to, and withstand the ongoing and expects
impacts of climate change….” House bill lacks similar
provision.
House and Senate bills are essentially identical, except
Senate bill adds a few additional items to include in plans.
Note that there is a typographical error in Sec. 369(e)(5):
where "regional fishery management plants” should read
"regional fishery management plans."
In these two sections, the bills are very similar in their
details and structure, and their allocations to various
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
S. 1733
(as reported by the Senate EPW Committee)
allowances to states for adaptation activities, and
distributes, “without further appropriation,”
proceeds from auction of allowances to specified
federal agencies and programs.
States must pay at least 10% of costs of any federal
grant provided in this section. (See specific
subsections, below.)
H.R. 2454
(as passed by the House)
allowances from Sec. 721(a) to support state adaptation
activities, and funds from auction of allowances to support
specified federal agencies and programs. Specifies that
appropriation levels for both federal programs should be
no less than the proceeds from specified allowances and
auction of allowances.
States must pay at least 10% of costs of any federal grant
provided in this section. (See specific subsections, below.)
Comments
programs generally differ by less than a percentage point.
However, the major difference is that the Senate bill
provides funds “without further appropriation,” while the
House bill subjects them to annual appropriations. The
House provisions rely on the creation of special funds and
provide the strongest possible encouragement to the
appropriations committees to approve appropriations at
the full authorized levels for the new funds.
Sec. 370(a)(1). Distributes allowances from Sec.
771(a)(16) and Sec. 216 (which allocates allowances
from Sec. 771(a)(16) to a new Natural Resources
Climate Change Adaptation Account, NRCCAA) for
Wildlife Restoration Program (84%; see 16
U.S.C.669c) and Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA) (16%; see 16 U.S.C. 1455(c)).
Sec. 480(a). Directs a percentage of the emission
allowances in Sec. 721(a) to state adaptation activities
under Sec. 479 for wildlife restoration grants (84.4%), and
coastal zone conservation (15.6%).
The House and Senate bills both allocate allowances to
state programs, rather than proceeds from auction of
allowances.
Sec. 370(a)(2). Distributes proceeds from auction
of allowances under Sec. 771(b)(7) and Sec.212.
Sec. 480. Natural Resources Climate Change
Adaptation Fund. Establishes a new Natural Resources
Climate Change Fund (NRCCF) in Treasury, with
appropriations authorized at not less than estimated total
annual deposits to Natural Resources Climate Change
Adaptation Fund (NRCCAF).
In S. 1733, Sec. 370(a)(2)-(6) all receive funding from Sec.
771(b)(7) and Sec. 212. However, both Sec. 771(b)(7) and
Sec. 212 direct that their proceeds go only to Sec.
370(a)(2). If these latter sections are correct, then the
source of funding for Sec. 370(a)(3)-(6) is not clear. It
seems likely that the intent in Sec. 771(b)(7) and Sec. 212
was to include all five of these paragraphs as eligible for
funding.
Allocates proceeds to the Department of Interior
(DOI) as follows:
•
28%—specified natural resources
adaptation activities by DOI agencies and
Sec. 371 Corridors Information Program.
•
8%—specified programs for endangered
species, wetlands, migratory birds, coastal
program, and private lands.
•
5%—specified tribal programs under
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Sec. 370(a)(3). Directs 20% of funds available from
Sec. 771(b)(7) and Sec. 212 under this subpart, for
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)-type
purposes—1/6 for Interior’s stateside assistance; 1/3
for Interior land acquisition; 1/6 for Forest Service
grants for land or easement acquisition; and 1/3 for
Forest Service land purchases—with considerations
for funding allocation.
CRS-27
Sec. 480(c)(1) allocates funds from NRCCF to DOI in a
manner similar to S. 1733, except amounts are 27.6% ,
8.1%, and 4.9%, respectively.
Sec. 480(c)(2). Essentially identical to Senate bill,, except
19.5%, rather than 20% for LWCF-type purposes.
Amounts allocated to LWCF are subject to annual
appropriations.
In the Senate bill, the availability of funds under the LWCF
is available “without further appropriation.” While a
comparable proposal has had considerable support from
the scientific and environmental communities to protect
rare ecosystems and/or recreational opportunities,
opponents have argued that the supervision of the
appropriations process is necessary, in order to protect
property rights and landowners. In addition, persons
wishing to limit federal spending in general may argue
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
S. 1733
(as reported by the Senate EPW Committee)
H.R. 2454
(as passed by the House)
Comments
against allocation of money to either fund in the absence
of annual control by appropriations and budget
committees.
Amounts allocated to LWCF to be available
“without further appropriation.”
In S. 1733, also see comments under Sec. 370(a)(2)
concerning funding from Sec. 771(b)(7) and Sec. 212.
Sec. 370(a)(4). Directs 8% of funds available from
Sec. 771(b)(7) and Sec. 212 under this subpart for
natural resource adaptation by the Forest Service on
the national forests and national grasslands and
through financial and technical assistance.
Sec. 480(c)(3). Essentially identical to Senate bill, except
8.1%, rather than 8%, for the same purposes.
In S. 1733, also see comments under Sec. 370(a)(2)
concerning funding from Sec. 771(b)(7) and Sec. 212.
Sec. 370(a)(5). Directs 11% of funds available
from Sec. 771(b)(7) and Sec. 212 to Secretary of
Commerce for specified coastal, estuarine, fishery,
marine mammal, endangered species, and coastal
programs.
Sec. 480(c)((4). Essentially identical to Senate bill, except
11.5%, rather than 11%, for the same purposes.
In S. 1733, also see comments under Sec. 370(a)(2)
concerning funding from Sec. 771(b)(7) and Sec. 212.
Sec. 370(a)(6). Directs 12% of funds available from
Sec. 771(b)(7) and Sec. 212 to EPA and 8% to Corps
of Engineers for specified estuarine and freshwater
ecosystem protection programs, including programs
in a list of 20 named ecosystems, as well as water
resources programs.
Sec. 480(c)(5). Essentially identical to Senate bill, except
12.2% for EPA and 8.1% for the Corps of Engineers, rather
than 12% and 8% respectively, for the same purposes.
Slightly different list of named ecosystems.
In S. 1733, also see comments under Sec. 370(a)(2)
concerning funding from Sec. 771(b)(7) and Sec. 212.
Sec. 371. National Fish and Wildlife Habitat
and Corridors Information Program.
Establishes a National Wildlife Habitat and
Corridors Information Program within DOI to
support states and tribes to develop coordinated
geographic information system (GIS) of fish and
wildlife habitat and corridors for information and
modeling of climate change impacts and adaptation,
and to enhance state and tribal wildlife action plans.
Use of GIS intended to aid policy makers at all
levels.
Sec. 481. National Wildlife Habitat and Corridors
Information Program.
Neither bill specifies a funding level, but funding available
from Sec. 370(a)(2) in S. 1733, and from Sec.480(c) in H.R.
2454.
Secretary authorized to support states and tribes
financially and technically to develop and implement
system.
CRS-28
Essentially identical to Senate bill.
GIS data bases for many areas of wildlife management
already exist, though coverage is often spotty and
comparisons may be difficult. Major benefit of programs
could be increased utility from better coordination and
compatibility.
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
S. 1733
(as reported by the Senate EPW Committee)
H.R. 2454
(as passed by the House)
Comments
Sec. 372. Additional Provisions Regarding
Indian Tribes. Specifies that nothing in this
subpart amends federal trust responsibilities to
Indian tribes. Exempts from Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) disclosure any information relating to
sacred sites or cultural activities that tribes consider
confidential. Clarifies that DOI Secretary may apply
provisions of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act in implementing this
subpart regarding safeguards for natural resources
conservation. Protects rights reserved under treaties
for tribes to take certain plant foods.
Sec. 482. Additional Provisions Regarding Indian
Tribes. Contains similar provisions. FOIA exemption is
more detailed and provides that information received by a
federal agency concerning human remains, resources,
cultural items, activities identified by an Indian tribe as
traditional or cultural, is protected from FOIA disclosure if
head of agency, in consultation with DOI Secretary and
tribe, determines that disclosures may cause significant
invasion of privacy, risk harm to remains or items, or
impede site use.
Both sections specify that the DOI Secretary may
authorize an Indian tribe to implement DOI climate
change activities related to natural resources conservation
in this subpart.
Sec. 383. Wildfire. Defines fire-ready communities
and authorizes cost-share grants to such
communities. Directs federal fire agreements to
encourage communities to become fire-ready.
Directs fire risk mapping of priority areas needing
fuel reduction efforts.
No similar provision
S. 1733 authorizes a program to reduce the risk of
wildfires in fire-ready communities and establishes criteria
therein. The program creates regional maps of
communities most at risk of wildfire and identifies priority
areas and identifies several examples for priority areas
needing “hazardous fuel treatment and maintenance.”
Grants would be provided for fire protection education
programs, training programs for local firefighters,
equipment to increase fire preparedness, implementation
of community wildlfire protection plans, and forest
restoration that accomplishes fuel reduction.
Sec. 212. Climate Change Safeguards for
Natural Resources Conservation. Establishes
an account in Treasury to be called Natural
Resources Climate Change Adaptation Account
(NRCCAA) to receive proceeds from auction
conducted under (new) Sec. 771(b)(7) of Clean Air
Act. Funds to be available “without further
appropriation” or fiscal year limitation for the
purposes of Sec. 370(a)(2), above.
Sec. 480. Natural Resources Climate Change
Adaptation Fund. See Sec. 480 discussion above.
Senate bill creates one fund; House bill creates two funds,
dividing federal and non-federal programs.
Sec. 216. State Programs for Natural
Resource Adaptive Activities. Directs
Administrator to distribute allowances to states
from Sec. 771(a)(15) in accordance with sec.
370(a)(1) (which provides for natural resources
adaptation activities; see above).
Sec. 480. See Sec. 480 discussion above.
CRS-29
Both Sec. 212 and Sec. 771(b)(7) in S. 1733, allocate
auction proceeds only to Sec. 370(a)(2), and not to Sec.
370(a)(3)-(6). If that is intentional, then the source of
funding for Sec. 370(a)(3)-(6) is not clear.
If Sec. 216 is to be interpreted consistently with Sec.
370(a) and Sec. 771(15)-(16), it appears likely that the
reference in this section should be to Sec. 771(a)(16),
rather than Sec. 771(a)(15).
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
S. 1733
(as reported by the Senate EPW Committee)
H.R. 2454
(as passed by the House)
Comments
OTHER CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION PROGRAMS, INCLUDING WATER RESOURCES
Sec. 211. Effects of Climate Change on
Drinking Water Utilities. Requires EPA, in
cooperation with the Secretaries of Commerce,
Energy and the Interior, to establish and provide
funding for a research program to assist drinking
water utilities in adapting to climate change.
Research program is to be conducted through a
nonprofit research foundation and should address
issues related to: water quality and quantity impacts
and solutions, impacts on groundwater supplies from
carbon sequestration, infrastructure impacts,
desalination and water reuse, alternative supply
technologies, energy efficiency and greenhouse gas
minimization, regional cooperative water
management solutions, utility management and water
management models, improving energy efficiency in
water provision and treatment, water conservation
and demand management, and customer
communication and education. Funding for this
program is authorized at $25 million for each of
FY2010-2020
No similar provision
Sec. 211 (of Division A) would establish and fund a broadranging research program that encompasses research in
these key issue areas and others. Language similar to Sec.
211 exists in free-standing bills, H.R. 3727 and S.1035.
Related bills in this Congress include House-passed H.R.
631, the Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Research
Act, which would establish in EPA’s Office of Research and
Development (R&D) a broad R&D program promoting
water use efficiency and conservation to address
increasing water scarcity resulting from increased demand
and climate change-related effects.
Sec. 381. Water System Mitigation and
Adaptation Partnerships. Requires EPA to
establish a water system mitigation and adaptation
partnership program and to provide grants to states
and Indian tribes for water system adaptation
projects. Identifies entities eligible to receive project
assistance as owners or operators of a community
water system, wastewater treatment works,
decentralized wastewater treatment system for
domestic sewage, groundwater storage and
replenishment system, or system for transport and
delivery of water for irrigation or conservation.
Identifies eligible uses, such as enhancing water use
efficiency, modifying or relocating water
infrastructure significantly impaired by climate
change, or studying how climate change may impact
future operations and sustainability of water
systems. Provides for a competitive process,
No similar provision
Sec. 381 authorizes appropriations for water system
mitigation and adaptation partnerships. Actual funds would
be provided through distribution of emission allowances
under Sec. 210 of Division B. Under Sec. 210 of Division
B, EPA would distribute the proceeds of emission
allowances to states to support the partnership programs
under Sec. 381 and a number of other programs. The
program proposed by Sec. 381 would consider both
adaptation ─ understanding and planning for impacts on
water supplies and watersheds ─ and mitigation ─
modifying water infrastructure facilities.
CRS-30
Water and wastewater utilities currently are eligible to
receive financial assistance for water infrastructure capital
projects through Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean
Water Act and other federal programs, but these others
do not exclusively address climate change-related project
needs. S. 1733 does not address coordination between
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
S. 1733
(as reported by the Senate EPW Committee)
prioritizing applications for water systems at the
greatest and most immediate risk of facing significant
climate-related negative impacts. Federal share of
projects shall not exceed 50%.
Sec. 382. Flood Control, Protection,
Prevention, and Response. Requires EPA, in
consultation with the Army Corps of Engineers and
FEMA, to establish a program to provide funds to
states and Indian tribes for flood control, protection,
prevention, and response projects that address the
climate change impacts, with priority to be given to
projects that directly assist flood activities by
communities, are part of a larger state or watershed
plan for flood reduction, advance multiple objectives,
protect or enhance natural ecosystem functions, use
nonstructural approaches, and reduce the frequency
and consequences of flooding in densely populated
areas.
H.R. 2454
(as passed by the House)
Comments
existing infrastructure assistance programs and the
proposed Sec. 381 program.
Other legislation in the 111th Congress also addresses
water system mitigation and adaptation partnerships. S.
1712 and H.R. 3747 include such a provision (section 6).
H.R. 2969 is similar. These bills would direct EPA (not
states) to make grants to water systems generally for the
same purposes as Sec. 381 of S. 1733.
No similar provision.
Sec. 382 of S. 1733 authorizes appropriations for a
program to grant states and Indian Tribes funds for floodrelated adaptation. Actual funds would be provided
through distribution of emission allowances under Division
B, Sec. 210.
S. 1733 contains language directing EPA to consult with
the Corps and FEMA to implement the provision. EPA
typically does not undertake flood control activities;
however, it does manage grant and loan programs that
distribute monies to states and other entities for water
quality and other environmental improvement projects.
Instead, federal flood damage reduction actions are
generally undertaken through the Corps and FEMA.a
The relationship of the proposed program to existing
federal flood damage reduction activities is not defined.
S. 1733 promotes a flood risk management approach (e.g.,
supporting measures that permanently reduce flood risks,
such as relocation out of flood-prone areas) and
prioritizes opportunities with multiple benefits (e.g.,
unified flood hazard, built-environment, and ecosystem
adaptation measures). A question raised by Sec. 382 is
whether eligibility for using these funds would require
consistency with state and local hazard mitigation plans
and state climate change adaptation plans?
Sec. 384. Coastal and Great Lakes State
Adaptation Program. Requires the EPA
Administrator to distribute grants for coastal states’
(including the Great Lakes states) adaptation. The
states may use the funds for planning and addressing
the impacts of climate change in coastal watersheds,
CRS-31
No similar provision
Sec. 384 of S. 1733 authorizes appropriations to
distribute funds to states for coastal impact
adaptation. Actual funds would be provided through
distribution of emission allowances under Division B, Sec.
210.
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
S. 1733
(as reported by the Senate EPW Committee)
including (1) addressing sea level and lake level
changes, shoreline erosion, and storm frequency or
intensity; (2) developing plans for protecting or
relocating public facilities and infrastructure; (3)
conducting related research and data collection; (4)
responding to impacts such as ocean acidification,
thermal stratification, saltwater intrusion into
freshwater aquifers; algae blooms and species
migration. Priority to plan and carry out projects
and activities shall be given to state coastal agencies.
H.R. 2454
(as passed by the House)
Comments
This provision would create a mechanism for coastal and
Great Lakes states to receive federal grants for climate
change adaptation measures. No similarly broad
adaptation provision is provided for inland areas; Sec. 382
of S. 1733 (described above) is focused solely on floodrelated adaptation.
The contents of State Natural Resource Adaptation Plans
(SNRAP) outlined in Sec. 369 of Division A are closely
related to data and activities identified in Sec. 384.
Similarly, there is potential overlap of activities funded in
Sec. 384 via state grants and Sec. 370(a)(5) and (6) of
Division A for federal activities. Although coordination
with other statewide climate change efforts is required in
Sec. 384, S. 1733 is neither explicit in the relationship
between Sec. 384 and SNRAPs, nor the distinction
between the adaptation focus of Sec. 384 and the SNRAPs
natural resource management focus. Coordinating
SNRAPs with existing activities such as State Coastal Zone
Management Plans is required by Sec. 369, but coastal
activities in Sec. 384 are not subject to the same
requirement. One implementation question is whether,
and if so how, use of funds and planning under Sec. 384
would be linked to existing state coastal zone management
programs and SNRAPs. The relationship between existing
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) grants under state coastal zone management
plans, and EPA’s administration of grants under Sec.384 is
not defined.
Source: CRS analysis.
a.
CRS-32
Other federal agencies are also involved with flood damage reduction projects, such as the United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation
Service, the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Provisions in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454
Author Contact Information
(name redacted), Coordinator
Analyst in Agricultural Policy
#redacted#@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
#redacted#@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
#redacted#@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
#redacted#@crs.loc.g
ov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
#redacted#@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Environmental Policy
#redacted#@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy
#redacted#@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
#redacted#@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
#redacted#@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Congressional Research Service
33
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.