James Marren

November 10, 2007

The House of Representatives and Senate voted to override a rare presidential veto, passing the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 ("WRDA"). Proponents hail the bill as much needed funding for numerous environmental projects and infrastructure while opponents cite the bill as another example of government waste.

Notably, the bill changed the cost sharing structure for maintenance of several large ports, resulting in hundreds of millions of federal dollars for maintaining commercial waterways. In addition, the bill authorized fifty-eight billion dollars of funding for flood control, habitat restoration and pollution clean up projects across the country. However, it could take decades to appropriate the funds authorized by the bill.

Opponents criticize WRDA for failing to address shortcomings in America's water resources policy. Despite severe water shortages in the South and the West, the bill only authorized funds for one regional project to conserve water during droughts. While the bill set priorities for where money should be spent, it failed to state a clear policy of promoting economic development and protecting the environment. In summary, fiscal conservatives deride the Bill as a large barrel of pet projects for law makers to show off to their constituents and not an effective statement of any policy.

Many elements of the Bill merit praise, however, according to environmental groups and local governments that stand to benefit from federal dollars. The bill authorized many environmentally beneficial programs, such as habitat cleanup in the Rio Grande basin and St. Claire Lake. The bill also authorized the Army Corps to construct massive locks and other flood control mechanisms on the upper Mississippi. Proponents argue that these funds are necessary to maintain our waterways and to improve the environment.

While the projects authorized by WRDA are largely needed and beneficial, they may not be sufficient to tackle future water issues. Our money and legislative effort could be better spent creating comprehensive reform for America's water policy and the Army Corps Engineers, particularly creating a more open process for ensuring timely and cost effective (therefore, within budget) completion of projects. In the face of aging infrastructure and the specter of increasing water shortages caused by climate change, the consequences of sticking with the status quo could be severe.

Sources:

GovTrack.us. H.R. 1495--110th Congress (2007): Water Resources Development Act of 2007, GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation), http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1495 (accessed Nov. 10, 2007).

Tom Schatz, Groups: Oppose H.R. 1495, Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Council For Citizens Against Government Waste, Apr. 18, 2007, http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=10715.

Chad Selweski, $20 Million Would Cleanup Lake St. Clair, The Macomb Daily, May 18, 2007, available at http://www.macombdaily.com/stories/051807/loc_lake001.shtml.