Editorial: Army Secretary Offer Adds WRDA Obstacles

The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 directed the secretary of the Army to revise the principles and standards the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers uses to formulate, evaluate and implement water resources projects. The Corps has issued a draft proposal that, among other things, would increase the minimum benefit/cost ratio from 1:1 to 1.5:1, or $1.50 in benefits for every $1 spent. Approval of the proposal would establish additional obstacles to the authorization and funding process for water projects. The proposal causes serious concerns among waterways leaders.

The Corps held a hearing on this issue June 5. According to Amy W. Larson, president of the National Waterways Conference, “The near–unanimous view of commenters [at that hearing] supported a watershed approach to planning, taking into consideration economic factors, environmental quality, regional economic development, social benefits, and public safety, (factors also called for by WRDA).

Larson says, “The proposal is extremely troubling and if implemented would have a disastrous effect on the federal role in water resource development. Not only were the public comments largely rejected, most troubling are the proposed minimum benefit cost ratio of 1.5 and the weighting of higher benefit/cost ratios in the selection process. This would be an abandonment of the standard established by the Congress for determining the federal interest in water resource development (that benefits equal or exceed costs or a B/C ratio of unity or better) and would instead rely on subjective standards.”

The proposal appears in the September 12 Federal Register. The Corps seeks comments by October 15. NWC’s new Legislative Policy Committee is drafting a response to indicate “strong opposition to the proposal,” Larson wrote.

As interpreted in an NWC overview, “the proposed revision is ambiguous and unnecessarily complex….The proposed revision,” it says, “fails to provide support utilization of a watershed approach to the development of plans. Failing to implement a watershed approach contributes to perpetuating the formulation of projects that meet narrow purposes and single objectives and does not meet contemporary water resources management paradigms.”

From a practical standpoint, water project proposals are already up against overwhelming odds. Numerous worthwhile waterways projects never got off the ground when they flunked the B/C test. They would have passed had other benefits (besides national economic benefits) been counted, including regional economic development and social well–being effects (including preventing loss of life)—objectives that were enunciated in the 1965 Water Resources Planning Act.

Scarcity of funds has always been a key factor. Now, when the nation is facing financial crisis, the problems of funding are exacerbated. There is the matter of the Office of Management and Budget, which during the past two or three years has not included in the president’s budget requests for any projects that offer less than $3 in benefits for every $1 spent. This indicates a lack of presidential support for projects as well.

The president’s budget did not include the Industrial and Kentucky locks in his budget for a couple years. Fortunately, Congress restored the funding. Unfortunately, even with the current fiscal year ending at midnight on September 30, Congress has not passed the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act or any of the 11 other appropriations acts for fiscal 2009. This does not represent a blow to authorized projects, however, because none of them are pending. They lost out because of the overall lack of federal funds. President Bush passed over all of the projects authorized in last year’s WRDA in submitting his budget request—and so did Congress.

Even when funding is authorized, Congress has not appropriated the money in a reasonable time frame.

The situation amounts to the federal government demonstrating once again its failure to acknowledge the importance of water resource projects to the economic development and even the very survival of the nation. Other nations are busy improving their waterways. Their leaders are puzzled when we ignore ours. It makes no sense to neglect the transportation infrastructure. Yet with the present makeup of Congress, neither major party is able to get anything done. When legislators are unable to pass positive legislation that clearly benefits the nation, the system is broken. A fix is in order. It took years to pass WRDA 2007. Was it all for naught?

The Waterways Journal encourages letters to the editor.
Have something on your mind?
Send letters to: jshoulberg@waterwaysjournal.net.
(Please indicate whether or not your letter is intended for publication.)