Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On Introduction of the Water Resources Planning and Modernization
Act of 2007
February 13, 2007
Mr. FEINGOLD: Mr. President, today I introduce the Water Resources
Planning and Modernization Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined in
introducing this legislation by the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr.
McCain. We have worked together for some time to modernize the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and I thank Senator McCain for his continued
commitment to this issue.
I was pleased that the Senate made significant progress last Congress
and included many key reforms in the Senate-passed Water Resources
Development Act. I again thank my colleagues who cosponsored a successful
independent peer review amendment: the Senator from Delaware, Mr.
Carper; the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman; the former Senator
from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords; and the Senators from Maine, Mrs. Collins
and Mrs. Snowe. I also want to acknowledge the Senator from California,
Mrs. Boxer, for her support for this amendment. In addition, I appreciate
the efforts to include reform provisions in the underlying bill by
the then-Environment and Public Works Committee Chairs and Ranking
Members: the former Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords; the Senator
from Montana, Mr. Baucus; the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe; and
the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond. After six years of efforts on
this issue, we made significant progress. However, negotiations between
the House and Senate stalled and no conference report was agreed to.
By introducing this bill today, I am renewing my efforts to ensure
that the Corps of Engineers’ water resources planning is brought
into the 21st century. As we all know, Hurricane Katrina produced
one of the most tragic and costly natural disasters in our nation’s
history. Water resources projects authorized by Congress and planned
by the Corps of Engineers contributed to the loss of vital coastal
wetlands (which can provide natural buffers from storm surge), intensified
the storm surge into New Orleans, and encouraged development in flood-prone
areas.
The flawed project planning, however, did not end there. Floodwalls
and levees that the Corps built to protect New Orleans failed catastrophically
during Hurricane Katrina. It is now well recognized – and indeed,
the Corps has acknowledged – that flawed engineering and construction
led to those failures and the flooding of much of New Orleans.
Over the past decade, dozens of governmental and scientific studies
have documented other flaws in Corps of Engineers’ project planning.
Most recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified
that recent Corps studies “did not provide a reasonable basis
for decision-making” because they were “were fraught with
errors, mistakes, and miscalculations, and used invalid assumptions
and outdated data.” The GAO found that the recurring problems
at the agency were “systemic in nature and therefore prevalent
throughout the Corps’ Civil Works portfolio.”
We can, and must, do better.
Congress should not authorize additional Army Corps projects until
it has considered and passed the reforms included in the Water Resources
Planning and Modernization Act. From ensuring large projects are sound
to using natural resources to protect our communities, modernizing
water resources policy is a national priority.
The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2007 represents
a sensible effort to increase our environmental stewardship and significantly
reduce the government waste inherent in poorly designed or low priority
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. It represents a way to both
protect the environment and save taxpayer dollars. With support from
Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, National Taxpayers Union, Council
for Citizens Against Government Waste, American Rivers, Association
of State Wetland Managers, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Environmental
Defense, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Republicans
for Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation, and
the World Wildlife Fund, the bill has the backing of a committed and
diverse coalition.
Mr. President, the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act
of 2007 can be broadly divided into five parts: ensuring sound projects
and responsible spending, valuing our natural resources, focusing
our resources, identifying vulnerabilities, and updating the Army
Corps of Engineer’s planning guidelines.
To ensure that Corps water resources projects are sound, the bill
requires independent review of those projects estimated to cost over
$40 million, those requested by a Governor of an affected state, those
which the head of a federal agency has determined may lead to a significant
adverse impact, or those that the Secretary of the Army has found
to be controversial. As crafted in the bill, independent review should
not increase the length of time required for project planning but
would protect the public – both those in the vicinity of massive
projects and those whose tax dollars are funding projects. The Director
of Independent Review can also require independent review of the technical
designs and construction of flood damage reduction projects to ensure
public safety and welfare. The independent review provision is identical
to that supported by a majority of my colleagues last Congress and
included in the Senate-passed WRDA.
We must do a better job of valuing our natural resources, such as
wetlands, that provide important services. These resources can help
buffer communities from storms, filter contaminants out of our water,
support vibrant economies, and provide vital fish and wildlife habitat.
Recognizing the role of these natural systems, the Water Resources
Planning and Modernization Act of 2007 brings the Corps’ 1986
mitigation standards into line with their regulatory program by requiring
Corps water resources projects to meet the same mitigation standard
that is required of all private citizens and other entities under
the Clean Water Act. Where states have adopted stronger mitigation
standards, the Corps must meet those standards. I feel very strongly
that the Federal government should be able to live up to this requirement.
Unfortunately, all too often, the Corps has not completed required
mitigation. This legislation will make sure that mitigation is completed,
that the true costs of mitigation are accounted for in Corps projects,
and that the public is able to track the progress of mitigation projects.
Our current prioritization process is not serving the public good.
To address this problem, the bill reinvigorates the Water Resources
Council (originally established in 1965) and charges it with providing
Congress a prioritized list of authorized water resource projects
within one year of enactment and then every two years following. The
prioritized list would also be printed in the federal register for
the public to see. The Water Resources Council described in the bill,
comprised of cabinet-level officials, would bring together varied
perspectives to shape a list of national needs. In short, the prioritization
process would be improved to make sure Congress has the tools to more
wisely invest limited resources while also increasing public transparency
in decision making – both needed and reasonable improvements
to the status quo.
Taking stock of our vulnerabilities to natural disasters must also
be a priority. For this reason, the bill also directs the Water Resources
Council to identify and report to Congress on the nation’s vulnerability
to flood and related storm damage, including the risk to human life
and property, and relative risks to different regions of the country.
The Water Resources Council would also recommend improvements to the
nation’s various flood damage reduction programs to better address
those risks. Many of these improvements were discussed in a government
report following the 1993 floods so the building blocks are available;
we just need to update the assessment. Then, of course, we must actually
take action based on the assessment. To help speed such action, the
legislation specifies that the Administration will submit a response
to Congress, including legislative proposals to implement the recommendations,
on the Water Resources Council report no later than 90 days after
the report has been made public. We cannot afford to have this report,
which will outline improvements to our flood damage reduction programs,
languish like others before it.
The process by which the Army Corps of Engineers analyzes water projects
should undergo periodic revision. Unfortunately, the Corps’
principles and guidelines, which bind the planning process, have not
been updated since 1983. This is why the bill requires that the Water
Resources Council work in coordination with the National Academy of
Sciences to propose periodic revisions to the Corps’ planning
principles and guidelines, regulations, and circulars. Updating the
project planning process should involve consideration of a variety
of issues, including the use of modern economic analysis and the same
discount rates as used by all other federal agencies. Simple steps
such as these will lead to more precise estimates of project costs
and benefits, a first step to considering whether a project should
move forward.
Modernizing all aspects of our water resources policy will help restore
credibility to a Federal agency historically rocked by scandal and
currently plagued by public skepticism. Congress has long used the
Army Corps of Engineers to facilitate favored pork-barrel projects,
while periodically expressing a desire to change its ways. Back in
1836, a House Ways and Means Committee report referred to Congress
ensuring that the Corps sought “actual reform, in the further
prosecution of public works.” Over 150 years later, the need
for actual reform is stronger than ever.
My office has strong working relationships with the Detroit, Rock
Island, and St. Paul District Offices that service Wisconsin, and
I do not want this bill to be misconstrued as reflecting on the work
of those district offices. What I do want is the fiscal and management
cloud over the entire Army Corps to dissipate so that the Corps can
better contribute to our environment and our economy – without
wasting taxpayer dollars or endangering public safety.
I wish the changes we are proposing today were not needed, but unfortunately
that is not the case. In fact, if there were ever a need for the bill,
it is now. We must make sure that future Corps projects produce predicted
benefits, are in furtherance of national priorities, and do not have
negative environmental impacts. This bill gives the Corps the tools
it needs to a better job and focuses the attention of Congress on
national needs, which is what the American taxpayers and the environment
deserve.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
RECORD.
|
