Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On Opposing the Water Resources Development Act Conference Report
July 30, 2007
“The version of the Water Resources Development
Act I’ve seen does not do nearly enough to change the way the
Corps of Engineers does business, and I won’t support it. After
a decade of government and independent reports about problems with
the Corps, and the tragic failures of New Orleans’ levees during
Hurricane Katrina, the American people deserve meaningful reforms.
Unfortunately, the conference report expected to be finalized as early
as today includes only weak reforms. The Senate twice voted in support
of strong reform language, but this conference report has been stripped
of important safeguards to ensure accountability and prevent the Corps
from manipulating the process. We have compromised enough over the
years. We can no longer afford a system that favors wasteful projects
over the needs of the American people.”
Fact Sheet by U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On the Water Resources Development Act
Senator Russ Feingold has announced his opposition to
the Water Resources Development Act because of changes made to the
bill’s independent review provision during negotiations between
the House and the Senate. The Senate version of the bill included
a strong provision authored by Feingold to help ensure future Corps
projects do not waste taxpayer money or endanger public safety. This
provision required review of Corps of Engineers project studies by
an independent panel of experts for: projects estimated to cost more
than $40 million; projects requested by a governor of an affected
state; projects that the head of a federal agency has determined may
have a significant adverse impact; or projects that the Secretary
of the Army has found to be controversial. The Feingold provision
also established an outside safety assurance review for critical flood
damage reduction projects to better ensure public safety.
Unfortunately, the independent review provision included
in the conference report was significantly weakened in several respects:
DOES NOT ENSURE INDEPENDENCE OF REVIEW PROCESS
Under the conference report, the “independent” review
is not independent. The review process is housed within the Corps
rather than outside the agency as required by the Senate bill. The
Corps’ Chief of Engineers is given significant authority to
decide the timing of review, the projects to be reviewed, and whether
to implement a review panel’s recommendations.
TERMINATES REVIEWS AFTER SEVEN YEARS
Seven years after enactment, the conference report would terminate
the requirement for projects to be peer reviewed. It is reasonable
for Congress to continually evaluate how the program is working, but
to presume there is not a long-term need for peer review and set a
sunset date is irresponsible. Independent review should be permanently
integrated into the Corps’ planning process. The burden should
be on the Corps to demonstrate why it does not need a congressionally
mandated review process, rather than on Congress to wage another battle
to extend the requirement in seven years.
ALLOWS CORPS TO EXEMPT PROJECTS
The Senate’s provision established mandatory review when clear
triggers are met. However, the conference report gives the Corps fairly
broad discretion to decide what projects get reviewed. It expands
the House’s loophole allowing the Corps to exempt projects that
exceed the “mandatory” $45 million cost trigger. The Corps
can exempt Continuing Authority Program projects, certain rehabilitation
projects, and projects that it determines are not controversial and
only require an Environmental Assessment rather than a full-blown
Environmental Impact Statement. A project’s economic justification,
engineering analysis, and formulation of project alternatives are
critical elements that should be looked at for all major projects,
not just those with significant environmental impacts.
PREVENTS REVIEW OF MOST ONGOING STUDIES
Though the conference report allows the Corps to exempt projects from
review, it does not give the Corps equal authority to include projects.
The bill includes restrictive language that prevents the Corps from
reviewing studies that were initiated more than two years ago or that
were initiated in the last two years but already have an “array
of alternatives” identified, which occurs early in the process.
The Senate language would have allowed the Corps to initiate a review
for any project that does not have a draft feasibility report.
DOES NOT ENSURE ACCOUNTABILITY
The conference report eliminated a key provision in the Senate bill
that ensures accountability. Specifically, the provision would have
required that if a project ends up in court, the same weight is given
to the panel and the Corps’ opinion if the Corps cannot provide
a good explanation for why it ignored the panel’s recommendations.
By dropping this accountability requirement, the conference report
allows the Corps to ignore the panel’s recommendations, as the
Corps is currently doing with its own internal review process.
ELIMINATES MANDATORY REVIEW UPON FEDERAL AGENCY
REQUEST
The Senate bill would have made a project review mandatory if requested
by a federal agency with the authority to review Corps projects. Instead,
the conference report gives the Corps the authority to reject the
request, and requires the federal agency to appeal the decision to
the Council on Environmental Quality. The Corps should be required
to conduct the review made by the head of another agency that is charged
with reviewing Corps projects or, at a minimum, to justify to CEQ
why it wants to deny such a request.
