|
The Administration is committed to a fiscally responsible Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA), which authorizes those projects that are both ready
for authorization and vital to the water and environmental infrastructure
needs of communities across the Nation and which adopts other needed policy
and program reforms. The Administration, however, strongly opposes H.R.
1480 in its current form. In particular, this legislation would authorize
the Secretary of the Army to construct local water projects that would
overturn the existing balance among environmental, agricultural, and
municipal water users in the Department of the Interior's Central Valley
Project (CA); would undermine the State and Federal partnership plans to
restore California's Bay-Delta; and would not be fair to taxpayers. For
these reasons, the Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency would recommend that the President veto the
bill. In addition, the Administration seeks modification to a number of
other highly objectionable provisions in the bill.
Overall Cost
The Administration urges the House to limit the amount of new construction
spending authorized in H.R. 1480 by authorizing only those projects that
Federal budget constraints will allow the Corps to complete within a
reasonable time frame. With an existing construction backlog of more than
$27 billion of Army Corps of Engineers water projects, it would require
close to 20 years to complete all of the ongoing projects at current
funding levels. That estimate excludes all other congressionally
authorized projects not yet under construction, including over a hundred
from the 1996 WRDA. The Administration hopes to work with the Congress as
the legislation proceeds on how best to align the overall cost of the
authorizations with a reasonable expectation of future available Federal
resources.
Project Authorizations
The Administration strongly objects to the many provisions in H.R. 1480
that would authorize projects before they complete an orderly Executive
Branch study and review process that is designed to determine their
economic and technical feasibility, environmental acceptability, and the
ability of local sponsors to provide the required local cost-share. Each
of the many authorizations in H.R. 1480 that bypass this planning and
review process by authorizing projects based solely upon a Chief of
Engineers' report weakens the review and approval responsibilities of the
Secretary of the Army and the Executive Branch. Those project
authorizations that are contingent upon a future Chief's report also
seriously undermine the ongoing study and review responsibilities of the
Army Corps of Engineers. Completion of the review process would not delay
those projects that are found to be justified because they could be
authorized next year in a WRDA 2000. The Administration strongly objects
to the many provisions in H.R. 1480 that would authorize projects before
they have favorably completed a full administrative review process.
In addition, some of the projects not ready for authorization also raise
serious policy concerns. For example, Savannah Harbor (GA) and other
projects have critical environmental issues, which should be resolved
before authorization.
The Administration also opposes the provisions of H.R. 1480 that would:
(1) authorize economically unjustified projects or those that fall outside
the missions of the Army Corps of Engineers; (2) grant unwarranted special
exemptions from cost-sharing or other requirements; or (3) authorize
projects and project modifications without studies or based upon outdated
planning reports. The Administration urges the House to reduce the costs
of H.R. 1480 substantially by deleting such provisions, along with the
project authorizations referenced above. For example, this Administration
opposes the Memphis Harbor land development project (TN), as have previous
Administrations, because it is an inappropriate activity for the Corps.
American River
The Administration is committed to increasing flood protection for the City
of Sacramento, California, and included provisions in its WRDA 98 proposal
to authorize substantial protection. While the Administration would prefer
its proposal, we would be willing to accept an alternative approach -- if
it is acceptable to the City of Sacramento. However, the Administration
strongly objects to the many unrelated water supply projects that have
been included in H.R. 1480.
H.R. 1480 would authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct over $270
million in new water supply projects, which previous studies by the
Department of the Interior have shown are unnecessary or not in the
national interest. The bill ties flood protection funding for Sacramento
to the construction of these objectionable projects, and requires
inappropriate Federal funding of a $94 million bridge. If constructed,
these projects would: (1) take water away from existing Central Valley
Project (CVP) users; (2) further delay implementation of key provisions of
the landmark 1992 CVP Improvement Act; and (3) disrupt efforts to restore
the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Hearings have not been held on any of these important provisions, many of
which authorize projects prior to completion of a feasibility report and
without the analysis required under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Further, there are inadequate repayment terms for many of the proposed
projects -- local cost sharing should be 100 percent, which is applicable
to water supply, rather than 35 percent, which is applicable to flood
protection.
Commercial Harbors
The Administration objects strongly to a proposed major increase in the
Federal cost-share of the construction of harbors deeper than 45 feet, and
of their operation and maintenance. The change would shift costs from
ports to the Federal Government, reducing the funding available for other
Army Corps of Engineers' water resources projects. The Administration
believes that any such authorization in this WRDA would be premature, at
best. There has been no demonstrated need for such cost-sharing relief.
Moreover, granting such relief would erode the important cost-sharing
reforms that Congress enacted in the 1986 and subsequent WRDAs. In
addition, this proposal could increase substantially the amount of dredged
spoil material requiring disposal, along with the associated costs and
environmental impacts. The impacts of any such a change require careful
analysis, which has not yet occurred.
"Challenge 21" Flood Hazard Mitigation and Riverine Ecosystem
Restoration
The Administration strongly supports the Challenge 21 program, an
innovative program to restore watersheds while providing non-structural
flood protection for communities. This program, which would provide a new,
more effective framework for solving flooding problems, has been endorsed
by many community leaders and national groups, such as the Association of
State Floodplain Managers and the National Association of Flood and
Stormwater Management Agencies.
H.R. 1480 includes a Challenge 21 program, but at funding levels and with
program time limits that are insufficient to allow the Corps to work
effectively with communities to reduce flood damages. In this regard, we
strongly recommend that the House authorize the Challenge 21 program as
requested in our WRDA 98 legislative proposal.
Pay-As-You-Go-Scoring
H.R. 1480 would affect direct spending and receipts, therefore, it is
subject to the pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) requirement of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990. OMB is currently developing its PAYGO
estimate.
|
