SierraScape August - September 2007
Back to Table of Contents
by Caroline Pufalt Contributing Member
In Capitol Hill scrabble games, WRDA probably counts as a word, as it has become such a fixture in Congress. WRDA stands for Water Resources Development Act. Almost every two years Congress considers WRDA legislation to fund Army Corps of Engineers projects across the country. Such projects may include levees, coastal and inland harbor construction, locks and dams, reservoirs etc and we always hope some funds for environmental improvements and mitigation.
In recent years WRDA legislation has also included efforts to improve or reform the way the Army Corps of Engineers operates. The Sierra Club along with other environmental and citizens groups have focused on efforts to make the Corps more accountable, transparent and efficient.
The problems have been huge. Legislators often use the WRDA process to deliver "pork barrel" projects to impress local constituents or more likely well funded special interest groups in their home districts or states. The Corps itself has been plagued by procedural problems which skew its evaluations of projects and waste taxpayer money. Investigations have also revealed deliberate manipulation of analysis to support big projects often seen as the agency's bread and butter. Readers may remember the scandal a few years ago over data used to support lock expansion along the Mississippi river as an egregious example. In that case projections of economic benefits of lock expansions were artificially enhanced to make the case for larger locks.
A few improvements have been made. Last cycle (2005) we were able to include in WRDA provisions to require independent review of some projects, to modernize its analysis process and improve its analysis of the environmental effects of its projects.
This year efforts were less successful. Two reform amendments we supported lost, but have increased a base of support to continue efforts in the next WRDA legislation. This year we tried to incorporate into the WRDA language that would have required the Corps to do a better job of prioritizing their projects. Projects can take years to complete and some become bogged down in delays due to funding or local issues. What is needed is a process to prioritize what projects are truly important for our country's needs. Our experiences with hurricane Katrina illustrated that we have not focused on critical projects.
A second amendment we supported was one to require that the Corps take into account projected impacts of global warming in planning projects. Given the fact that sea level rises and severe weather patterns are part of the expected impact of global warming, it only makes sense that the Corps should plan for these changes. Unfortunately one cannot assume that the Corps will do this unless directed to.
The amendment to prioritize projects lost, although it gained supporters based on 2005 numbers. The global warming impact amendment was new this year and it actually passed in the Senate with a narrow majority but then had to be scrapped in conference.
Senator Bond voted against both these amendments while Senator McCaskill voted for them. We thank Senator McCaskill for her support and her willingness to take a hard look at the Corps and vote to improve its operation.
The final WRDA bill that passed included a lot of unnecessary and harmful projects, including the expansion of the lock system along the Mississippi river. The Sierra Club continues to oppose this expansion and will continue to question this project at the point of funding. Also we can work to ensure the required environmental mitigation accompanying it. Lock expansion proponents claim it is needed to handle increased barge traffic on the river. But the facts are that barge traffic has failed to grow as the Corps predicted and there are several factors, such as the impact of ethanol production that will continue to keep traffic down.