The first formal expression of what the Administration is looking for in a water resources bill came to light today in a March 14 letter from Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy to Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA). The letter provides "input on the development of Water Resources Development Act." It arrives as the chairman, with ranking Republican David Vitter (R-LA), is about to release their bipartisan recommendations for WRDA 2013.
Ms. Darcy outlines a sort of policy wish list, one that has familiar themes from current and past Administrations--watershed planning, process improvement, and authorization of projects “most likely to generate a high return to the Nation.” More notably the letter's message crosses into territory that knowingly will have the effect of a matadors' red cape.
For the port/navigation community...it states an unambiguous view in opposition to the lobbying effort by ports to increase channel maintenance funding and have full-use made of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Instead, “spending should not be based on the level of receipts from the current tax.” It also reiterates the Administration’s proposed fix for the broken Inland Waterways Trust Fund including a new fee structure, which the industry has opposed in favor of building on the existing fuel tax regime.
For flood plain communities...the letter suggests that Congress “re-examine the Federal role following a flood in reconstructing public infrastructure including levees and other flood and storm damage reduction features.” It continues, suggesting reconsideration of “law and policies that influence where and how we rebuild.”
For shoreline and other flood prone communities...Ms. Darcy goes further, calling on the legislature to “retroactively revise the stated purpose of all existing [Corps] authorities that include flood control, storm or hurricane protection, or shore protection as a project purpose.” Reducing “the risk of flood damage in areas beyond the shore” is one thing; protecting and defending a shoreline alignment “for its own sake” is quite another.
The imperatives that drive those and other recommendations of the Administration boil down to concerns about program cost and environmental consequence. Both of those will speak to certain members of the congressional committees that will produce WRDA bills. Other messages in the letter may speak even louder.
Comments