Water Resources Development Act of 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, I have come here to the floor this afternoon because there is a specific and, I would argue, unique public safety concern that I have in my district right along the Intracoastal Waterway.
Specifically, it is right there at Southport Marina.

Let me give you a visual description of what is taking place there.

When you are traveling up the Intracoastal Waterway, particularly from the south, you can't see the Southport Marina at all. There is not a no-wake zone there. Because you can't see the Southport Marina, these boats, particularly the recreational users, fly right on through there.

This is a high traffic area, particularly during the spring and summer months when you have a lot of recreational boaters on the water.

This is a growing area. In fact, this has been a public safety concern for some time; so much of a public safety concern, that the State of North Carolina passed a law requiring that this area adjacent to the Southport Marina be a no-wake zone. The problem is the Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard won't recognize it.

So let me give you this mental picture again. You have got the Intracoastal Waterway, you have a marina that most boaters, particularly those speeding up from the south, can't see on the left- hand side. They are flying through there. You have all kinds of boats coming in and out, recreational boats coming in and out of the marina.

This is a major accident waiting to happen.

The local sheriff's office is quite concerned about this. The local government and county commissioners, town, and all of the local citizens are quite concerned about this. Again, I want to stress that there has been so much concern about this that the State of North Carolina passed a law requiring this area to be a no-wake zone.

So this is not an amendment in any way, shape, or form to require or attempt to persuade the Corps of Engineers or Coast Guard to get in the business of no-wake zones. However, it is designed to encourage the Corps and the Coast Guard to work with the locals and the State to address this significant public safety issue.

The amendment is narrowly crafted so as to avoid creating any other speed bump, for example, up and down the Intracoastal Waterway. And there is an exception made for tugboat operators, because I certainly recognize that they have to maintain a certain speed in order to get the cargo through the waterway.

I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROUZER. Here is the situation. There is not a no-wake zone there because the Army Corps and the Coast Guard do not recognize it. The State passed a law requiring that there be a no-wake zone, but there is not one because Federal law, obviously, supersedes State law.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, I think the problem specifically is that it is Federal water. I would add, again to paint a mental picture here, you have State and local officials that want to have a no-wake zone; and the only reason why there is not a no-wake zone there is because the Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard do not recognize it.

Again, I would suspect that is specifically because it is Federal water.

This amendment is narrowly tailored to address this specific public safety issue. Again, I would encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source