Statement of Administration Policy: S. 2740 - Water Resources Development Act of 1990

(Senate)
(Burdick (D) North Dakota)

Any new Water Resources Development Act must preserve the cost-sharing principles and other critical policy reforms contained in the Water Resources Development Acts of 1986 and 1988. These reforms emphasize high priority urban flood control and commercial navigation projects. They also ensure that all projects have thoroughly documented economic and environmental justifications in accordance with long-established Federal principles and guidelines.

S. 2740, in a number of instances, is inconsistent with these principles. Therefore, unless amended as noted below, the Administration would strongly oppose its enactment.

In order to secure Administration support, S. 2740 must be modified to delete any provisions which would:

—  authorize, or conditionally authorize, over 20 projects for which economic and environmental feasibility evaluations do not exist or have not been completed;

—  unduly intrude into Executive branch policy and budgetary prerogatives by requiring the Corps of Engineers to secure public and congressional approval prior to making routine changes in its operation of projects or its program guidance; or

—  weaken the cost-sharing reforms of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, or extend Federal responsibility into new areas without requiring significant non-Federal cost sharing.

The Administration also strongly objects to the bill's failure to include the increased recreation user fee and harbor maintenance user fee proposals contained in the President's FY 1991 Budget. Given the need for deficit reduction, foregoing these $420 million of additional revenues would require commensurate cuts in Corps programs.

In addition, the bill creates over $2.5 billion in future funding commitments. Given the demand to reduce current and future appropriations, this would preclude Federal funding of other high-priority flood control and navigation projects in the future.

If these concerns are not addressed, and if a significant number of low priority projects or exceptions to the aforementioned policies are added in conference, the President's senior-advisers would recommend that he disapprove the bill.